Early Polls

[Lord Jim]

It seems to me the early polling matching up Hillary against potential GOP contenders that while on the surface consistently put her in the lead shouldn't really be any great comfort to her...

Here's a link to the latest polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

The latest national trial match ups were published by Quinnipiac last thursday; they reflect pretty much what other polls have said.

Hillary leads every candidate by between 4 and 11 points. BUT in not one single match up does she hit 50%; her highest is 48%....(The two who are the closest are Rubio and Paul. Paul always seems to poll well against Hillary, but a lot that is because he gets support from lefities who only know from the liberal mainstream media about his lefty views on defense and the war on drugs. In a general election this support would evaporate, because the media would hammer hard on all his other anti-social program policies.)

This is a big problem for the Clinton, because her name recognition is such that she doesn't have much room to grow her support. After nearly a quarter century in the national spotlight almost every adult in the country has opinion about her.

By contrast I doubt that Rubio's name recognition for example, is higher than 80% (probably a bit lower than that) for a guy in his situation to only trail Hillary by 4 points, (45-41) at this juncture he in great shape...He has an enormous amount of room to grow his support...Even among people who know who he is, most are not likely to have known about him long enough to have their feelings cast in stone.

In fact even Jeb Bush has more room to grow support then Hillary does; his last name is universally known, but he and his record personally is not. As the campaign progresses, he'll have at least an opportunity to change minds by getting people to focus on him, and not his brother....How many minds is Hillary Clinton going to be able to change?

This is why I've been saying all along that I think Hillary is a very beatable candidate. She has high floor of support; she probably can't get less than 47% of the vote even against a strong candidate who runs a great campaign. But she also has a very low ceiling of potential support; she probably can't get more than 51 or 52 percent even against a terrible candidate who runs an awful campaign.

If the GOP candidate and campaign is more like the former than the latter, beating Hillary will not be a big problem.

[RayThom]

... we could experience a nuclear winter between now and the scheduled presidential elections. Any early polls are woefully premature and highly speculative. I think you might want to reign in these flashes of brilliance at least, and until, the stampede of candidates finally ends.

http://www.270towin.com/2016-countdown-clock/

526 days, that's twelves generations away to a fruit fly.

[Long Run]

So, RT, are you saying, "tse, tse"?

[wesw]

I think that the polls are way off. the ladies at the local library don t seem too impressed with old Hillary and her bullcrap. I think that even some of the dyed in the wool Dems will just stay home or put in a protest vote for sanders or some other fringe candidate

if the GOP can find it in its heart to nominate someone like Kasich or Walker they are almost certain of victory. nominating Jeb bush would bring out a whole set , or many sets of people against him and would cause some swing voters to stay home.

Rubio seems the most likely nominee for VP. he isn t seasoned enough to be president yet in my view, but he hits good demographics , politically, which is not the best way to choose, in my opinion, but that's the way it goes....

[rubato]

What the early polls show is that the Republican field is uniformly loathsome and repellant and the Republican policies are bad, insane and stupid.


Hillary does not have a positive endorsement nor does she deserve one.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

What the early polls show is that the Republican field is uniformly loathsome and repellant and the Republican policies are bad, insane and stupid.

Yeah, that's what the numbers show alright....

But then again, you ought to know all about being uniformly loathsome, repellant, bad, insane and stupid, having cultivated those qualities for so long...

[Gob]

He's started early.

[Sue U]

Paul always seems to poll well against Hillary, but a lot that is because he gets support from lefities who only know from the liberal mainstream media about his lefty views on defense and the war on drugs.

Paul doesn't have "lefty" views on anything. To the extent he is a half-assed Libertarian, he embraces isolationism and a substantially reduced military, as well as a substantially reduced federal role in drug enforcement. But he does not support an end to the "war on drugs" or decriminalizing marijuana or any other drug; he just doesn't want to spend government money to imprison nonviolent drug offenders.

[Big RR]

he just doesn't want to spend government money to imprison nonviolent drug offenders.

To be fair Sue, that's a lot more than many other candidates in either party propose.

[Sue U]

he just doesn't want to spend government money to imprison nonviolent drug offenders.

To be fair Sue, that's a lot more than many other candidates in either party propose.

True, but Paul's motivation (at least as he's articulated it) isn't even the personal liberty issue. He's happy to keep pot and other drugs illegal. Which is why he is a failure as a Libertarian.

[rubato]

Last time there was at least one candidate who was not repellant and actually qualified to be president (Huntsman) but this time they are all Gingrich-equivalents or worse on the nastiness scale.


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

Kasich too?

[RayThom]

There is no data out there positively stating that 2016 will come down to Clinton and Bush although that will most likely be the choices for the 60.4% of the American people who are eligible to vote. Below is a list of all the candidates (so far) who have thrown their hat into the ring. So, what are your thoughts on each one? BTW -- I'm on the fence so far, so your in-depth analysis should help me out tremendously. Keep in mind there are only 524 days left so don't treat this request lightly. Thanking you in advance for your help.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0
Plus: 06/03/15
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/po ... ident.html
Plus: 06/04/15
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/po ... ident.html

[Lord Jim]

Here's the latest, and the pattern remains pretty much the same:

Clinton leads the entire GOP field in hypothetical general election match ups but it's all by pretty modest margins- her advantages range from 3 to 7 points. The Republicans who fare best against Clinton are Ben Carson and Marco Rubio, each of whom trail by 3 points at 46/43. Rubio is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who has a positive favorability rating with the overall electorate- 37% of voters see him favorably to 36% with a negative opinion.

Clinton leads Jeb Bush and Chris Christie each by 4 at 45/41, Scott Walker by 4 as well at 46/42, has a 5 point advantage over Mike Huckabee at 47/42, is up 6 on Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz at 46/40 and 48/42 respectively, and has a 7 point edge over Rand Paul at 47/40. Clinton's 3 to 7 point lead range is comparable to our April poll when she led by 3 to 9 points, but down from February when we found her leading the GOP hopefuls by 7 to 10 points.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... inant.html

Still not getting 50% against anybody...

The three point edge over Carson is really stunning; I have to believe that some of that may be some African Americans who know Carson's black but don't really know much about his positions...(Much like Paul attracts some people who only know about his positions drugs and national security)

If I'm a senior Clinton adviser I'm definitely not thrilled about what I'm seeing here. I'm not thinking, "Gee we're in great shape; we're beating every single potential GOP nominee!" (though that's what I'd probably say to the press.)

No, to others in the campaign I'm saying:

"Ladies and gentlemen it's early, but we're not anywhere near where we want to be at this point in the campaign. Our candidate only has a lead that is at or near the margin of error over almost every potential GOP nominee, including one who is completely unqualified and has a record for saying a number of offensive and nutty things. Hell, we don't even pull 50% against a guy as abrasive and obnoxious as Ted friggin' Cruz...

And to make matters worse, almost everyone in the country already has a pretty strong opinion about our candidate, which is not true of most of the candidates on the other side...We've got our work cut out for us."

[BoSoxGal]

I don't care for many of his policy positions but some of them, like providing the earned income credit up front in tax relief rather than poor families waiting for tax time and their refunds to pay major bills that poverty wages won't cover, aren't at all terrible.

I could live with Rubio better than any of the rest, and it would be terrific for the GOP. I'm not sure they're wise enough to kick Jeb! to the curb in favor of a real Hispanic.

[rubato]

Rubio's out of control personal finances make him look like a pure idiot. He'd be dead meat in the general election.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

He'd be dead meat in the general election.

Yeah, because Hillary's personal finances record is so pristine....

[wesw]

dude, do you really think that all those millions of African American Christians in church today don t know who Dr ben Carson is???

he be preachin' to the choir, brother....

[BoSoxGal]

Rubio's out of control personal finances make him look like a pure idiot. He'd be dead meat in the general election.


yrs,
rubato

What are those exactly? That he spent a book advance on real property,a boat and paying off his student loans? Or that he has debt, like the vast majority of Americans?

[Lord Jim]

I think it's all those tickets...

Or maybe the "oversized windows":