Why the GOP Should Worry About Hillary Clinton's Poll Numbers

[DemocratSinceBirth]

With the 2016 general election a little less than 16 months away, key polling data for Hillary Clinton shows that her numbers look a lot like President Barack Obama's in 2012 — and could be bad news for Republicans.

The American Communities Project took the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling data and ran it through its filter.

The numbers show Republicans may have a hard road ahead. Across the types for which we had sufficient numbers for a sample — dense Big Cities, wealthy, diverse Urban Suburbs, and sprawling Exurbs — figures for Clinton look eerily similar to those Obama scored in his re-election effort.

We also collected numbers from a group of less-populated rural communities groups — counties ACP calls Rural Middle America, Graying America and the Aging Farmlands. These numbers show the familiar splits that favor Republicans.

You can see a map of all the types on this page.

But the over-riding point is that at this early stage of 2016, the electorate looks very similar in its 2012 patterns when you compare Hillary Clinton to the top three GOP competitors.


http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/why-gop-should-worry-about-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-n389946




Kind of straight forward political/social science; the further a person gets out in the country the more conservative he or she becomes.

[66 dmhlt]

1. Your Link is incomplete ...

Try this one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/why-gop-should-worry-about-hillary-clintons-poll-numbers-n389946

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Thank you sir or madame.

The Republicants used to win nat'l elections by holding their own in the suburbs and running up the score in the hinterlands.

[BooScout]

2. The are too busy worrying about this....

[img][/img]

[corkhead]

4. That will be good news in about a year or so if she makes it through the primaries.

[Doctor_J]

5. yes and no

I guess they would like the white house, and the drooling limbeciles are probably worried, but the big shots know that a republican congress together with a new democrat president means lots of republican policies get passed.

[Scuba]

6. Sadly true. They're a lot less worried about Hillary winning than they are Bernie.

[Kalidurga]

7. Fine by me

Bernie can build his army of supporters and door knockers while they sleep. They can have a serious coming up. If he wins the primaries they will have no idea what to do. I suspect they will try the same tactics that they always use; smears, lies, innuendos, a serious spread of FUD, half truths, and smears by proxy. The only problem is Bernie is a fairly open book the people that support him do so knowing that he is not perfect and he has lived his life as a person not a candidate. He won't attack them back either he will stay on the message that our enemy isn't really Republicans it's the 1%. Republicans do their bidding of course. But, we really do need to take the 1% on as a unified nation, I think Bernie can rally the 99% to do this.

[DFW]

13. There's a good "chicken or the egg" question.

You say the 1% is our enemy, and Republicans are not, but then go to note that it is the Republicans who do the 1%'s bidding. But get rid of the Republican stooges in Congress and the Statehouses, and not only does the 1% have no one left to follow their orders, but the Democrats could have the majorities necessary to pass laws that limit the influence of the money of the 1%.

The 1%, or better, the .01%, will always be there. Limit them to sailing around in their yachts and ordering their chauffeurs and butlers, but take away their disproportionate representation in Congress and the Statehouses, and I'm cool with. I don't care if some gazillionaire had the smarts and initiative to amass a fortune. I care plenty if he uses his financial clout to buy influence in our government. The law says I can contribute a maximum of a few grand to some candidate. Fine. But a guy with a net worth of ten thousand times mine should not be entitled to give any more than I do.

[Kalidurga]

21. a guy with a net worth of ten thousand times mine should not be entitled to give any more than I do.

I totally agree with that. And I don't know what came first the 1% as we know it today or the Republicans doing their bidding. I suspect Republicans have been kissing the **** of the 1% since the foundation of their party. I don't know who was in the bag for the 1% before their party was formed. I guess what I am trying to say as long as there has been a 1% they could always find a stooge to do their dirty work for them. And I like what you are saying the 1% should just get on a yacht and go away and leave the government to people that actually have to work for a living and who are actually effected by the government and they are not it.

[DFW]

23. Careful with your history

A total reversal of roles has occurred since the foundation of the Republican Party. The most perverse thing they do these days is point to one of their major founders (and first president), Abraham Lincoln. Although his supposed warning about the growing power of corporations has been debunked as false, there is this commentary on his views on labor that stands uncontested:


"It was easy to understand Lincoln's appeal to social radicals, said [socialist William J.] Ghent, for he held very advanced views of the rights of labor. As early as 1847 he had written, "To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government," which was remarkable for a prairie lawyer of that time. Speaking in New England in 1860, he praised the right to strike, as then being exercised by the shoemakers of Lynn. His clear assertion of the labor theory of value in the 1861 message — "Labor is prior to, and . . . superior to capital" — and his answers to the addresses of workingmen abroad and at home gave a color of Marxism to his thinking. He was, surely, the best friend labor ever had in the White House."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp#O1RQLti0LWc4B4oc.99

[elzenmahn]

11. Agreed...

...Like the reply states, and judging from how the MSM is treating Bernie, the 1% and their puppets are far more worried about Sanders than Clinton. Hillary is a known quantity to them, and openly friendly to the 1%.

Now is not the time to be friendly to the 1% and their minions. This is a class war - a war that the 99% did not declare, but was declared on them by the 1%. They asked for this - now they're going to get it.

[Dustlawyer]

17. The Plutocrats get more of what they want from a corporate Democrat in the White House

because they can blunt opposition to what Wall Street wants and the Republicans will go along because their owners tell them to (Fast track for TTP). A vote for Hillary is a vote for corporate control, plain and simple.

[RiverNoord]

12. Yup.

Unless there is some sort of sane 'rescue' candidate, the GOP establishment knows that the next President will be a Democrat. The traditional GOP money machine will be working for a Clinton victory, because she'll play ball.

[RiverNoord]

15. And they would be able to use her candidacy

as a House and Senate campaigning bonanza. The right-wing propaganda machine has spewed Hillary hate for a couple of decades. It's going to be very, very hard for Democratic candidates in marginally contestable districts to run effectively with a Clinton candidacy. On the other hand, a Sanders candidacy could be a seismic shift on the state and local campaign machinery level. There is no 'hate Bernie Sanders' machinery, and he talks issues. The GOP has been conning 'red state' voters for years with 'big government' propaganda. Now they'd be faced with 'the ultra-rich are your bosses and own everything - want to do something about that?,' which works on the same level as anti-big government. The entire big money ad machine gets called out, and every ad that has a 'paid for by (some group that has a somewhat decent sounding name)' line will be explicitly challenged as 'do you know who (the group) really is? Here's who's really paying to sell you this line of BS....'

The best scenario for the GOP is a Clinton presidency.

[Metric System]

22. There is not "Hate Bernie Sanders" machinery yet. There will be if he's the nominee. The Right is

salivating at running against a self-described Socialist.

[MoonRiver]

8. She will be a great president!

[Sheepshank]

9. She is a damned fighter.

I see her with less of a desire to placate republican whims.

[MoonRiver]

10. She's been fighting them for 30 years.

She knows all their tricks and how to beat them.

[Doctor_J]

18. she already said she will be MORE accommodating than Obama

Why would you post that you think she'll fight them?

[lunamagica]

14. K&R. She knows how to deal with them better than anyone running.

[DFW]

16. No matter WHO our nominee is

The Republican hate machine will be on overdrive as a last ditch attempt to recover the White House. IF, and it is a big "if," Hillary should get the Democratic nomination, she will have such a massive hate campaign set upon her by Republicans that she would have to have skin thicker than an alligator with elephant DNA. She will not forget it. She served in the Senate with McConnell. She knows what she'll have to deal with if she's elected. Bernie's still a Senator, so he does, too.

The next (Democratic) president would have a bigger reserve of payback than many here are allowing for. All (s)he'd have to do at the White House meetings the day after the inauguration is put a screen in the room and play back the attack ads and the comments on the Sunday talk shows. Then say, "OK, you threw at me all you had, and I'm here anyway. I'm not forgetting ANY of that shit. Are you gonna announce your goal of making me a one-term president already, or are you going to try to work with me? If it's the latter, I'll order coffee. If it's the former, call your drivers, because you're leaving now."

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Her unfavorable number is still ~50% as is her

untrustworthy number.

This is before the slime machine fires up.


If she wins the nomination, it won't be a cake walk.

[The Second Stone]

20. It won't be a cakewalk for any candidate from either party

It's going to be hard fought. 08 should have been a resounding landslide based on the the economy tanking so utterly for the incumbent party. It was merely decisive, in part because the Palin screw up (which was entirely avoidable had they done their homework and not tried to shake things up) took such a prominent place in the decision making of the public.

Hidden amongst the clown car are a few candidates who are not complete clowns. A ticket of the duller republicans would be real work for Democrats. And I'd much rather see that than a Trump or Santorum nomination. You can never tell when the Supreme Court is going to go all Bush v. Gore on you, or the public might actually vote against their own interests so that job creators can buy Bentleys.