Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 06, 2016, 12:35:39 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 524
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: General Election-Clinton vs. Cruz on: April 16, 2016, 09:34:34 pm

Virginia,

Generally, I would say that I agree with you as far as this election cycle is concerned which I have to admit is very frustrating and a bit discouraging. It is absolutely essential that the party move to shift a significant share of the African American electorate which is made all the more difficult with a clownish candidate like Donald Trump doing seemingly everything that he can to induce antipathy from our minority communities towards the party. I can only see his campaign as doing yet more damage in this area. The party needs to go after 100% of the vote, as a Charlie Baker did in his Gubernatorial campaign here in Massachusetts or even John Kasich did in his re-election campaign as Governor of Ohio. If the party fails to do so, then it is in serious trouble moving forward.

In healthy political times, ethnic identity means little in voting. Yes, the gross inequality of treatment of blacks and whites in politics and economics still hurts. In good times people identify themselves with such statements as "I am a Texan", "I am a graduate of the University of Illinois", "I am a Baptist", "I am an accountant", "I am a Cardinals fan", or "I ski". "I am white", I hope, counts for very little. But it does count for much in the way that peopole see others.   

Quote
As to your point about millennials, while I think that it is a valid one, I do hold out some hope in that these are people who will ultimately enter the workforce and try to start their own businesses and attain success in the coming years and will soon find the modern social democratic party to be quite hostile to free enterprise, individual responsibility, entrepreneurial activity, low tax regime e.t.c. e.t.c. Of all of my business clients for example, I would guess that only 5-10% voted for Obama's reelection in 2012 and something like 90-95% voted for Romney. That is how stark it can be. That is a fairly general sentiment that the political left does not appreciate how important markets are, how hard it really is to attain success in the private sector and how much people put on the line. There is a general feeling, especially in the upper middle class, that they are under attack, both economically and in terms of individual freedom and freedom to choose. Unfortunately, some of this is mitigated by the fact that we are experiencing slowing social mobility and many millennials will probably spend at least the next ten years as employees in low to mid level positions. In those positions people are more likely to vote left-wing.

Even more significant is that the non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight parts of the American middle class find the GOP hostile to their interests. Maybe the anti-intellectualism of GOP operatives and politicians suggests a hostility to some people's ways of joining the American middle class. People see joining the middle class as the result of individual achievement and not the result of capital formation.

Market freedom can at times be seen not so much that people can use the markets to their advantage but instead that the markets are means of enforcing the desires of those in the economic elite. 

Quote
Finally, it has to be mentioned, that the George W. administration has made it harder still to formulate a winning coalition. The shadow of his administration continues to hurt the party.

The 43rd President mucked things up badly with a speculative boom that went bad and wars for profit that turned into quagmires. He was an "Establishment" Republican, and the "Establishment" wing of the GOP (the part that puts most emphasis on tax cuts for the rich, relaxation of regulation, and faith in markets. "Establishment" Republicans except perhaps for John Kasich have been knocked out of the Presidential race.

Here's a bad trend for Republicans: at the same level of income, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are more savvy about politics than white people.
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Morning Consult forecasts general election maps on: April 16, 2016, 11:36:58 am
I have seen suggestions that Utah could be in play if Trump (but not Cruz or Kasich) is the nominee. Arizona is a likely battleground state except with Kasich.
128  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kasich: Don't drink alcohol if you don't want to get raped on: April 16, 2016, 11:21:02 am
Quote from: Dictator for Life (I - USA)


Wild, drunken, underage college parties are well known to be dangerous and places where sexual assault, violence, drug abuse, and other crimes occur at a significantly higher rate.  Furthermore, from Kasich's perspective as a concerned adult at least, there's no real unique benefit to going to these parties.

True. But there need be alternatives to attending wild, drunken parties while underage for drinking. Maybe more sedate, alcohol-free events?

I was 18 when the legal age for drinking was 18. But I knew how to drink -- nurse a drink for two hours and get another, starting at 5PM.  The drinks were likely watered down, anyway. But we college students had little tolerance for assault, violence, ugly language, or drugs (marijuana excepted). But we were college students.

But even if one is drinking age -- it would be wise to avoid wild, drunken parties, or for that matter, very rough bars.

Others didn't bother with the two-hours-between-drinks rule. They got sick.

Quote
Going to major cities and flying on airplanes will not put you at a significantly higher risk of terrorism because terrorism is so low in the first place.  Additionally there are obvious benefits to doing those things, so the marginal cost of not going to them far exceeds the risk taken by the minutely higher risk of terrorism.  So it's not good advice.

Good. Paris is still a good tourist destination even if Tokyo is safer.

Quote
A better analogy would be "I have one bit of advice:  Don't go to Somalia or the Afghan/Pakistan border unless you absolutely have to"

Or Syria. Or Iraq. Or Colombia. Or Venezuela.

As far as that goes, Detroit or St. Louis unless you really know where you are going.
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: How does Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico trend GOP? on: April 16, 2016, 08:30:50 am
How does Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico trend GOP? What will it take to get them to appeal to the GOP again in the long term? These three states were 'red' back in the 1980s. Would the GOP changing their policies to Libertarian help their cause?

1. Cory Gardner barely won in 2014 running against a weak Democrat, Mark Udall.
2. People are moving to CO and NV in high numbers, especially from blue states. They import their liberal politics with them from their old state such as the west/east coast, which changes the demographics.
3. Should the GOP change their policies to become more of an urban/suburb educated party and 'steal' votes away from the Democratic party, but still be fiscally conservative and socially moderate?

1. Gardner loses in 2020.

2. They are moving from California for cheaper real estate and lower taxes. Even if they are conservatives they bring their kids already drifting D with them. Add to this, the Hispanic populations tend to bring a communitarian culture with them. Hispanics look out for each other as white Anglos closer to the questionable ethos of every-man-for-himself. Figure that there is much assimilation between Hispanics and Anglo whites, and assimilation is toward the Hispanic norm in political culture.

3. Easily said, and not easily done. The level of formal education was a strong proxy for Republican voting, but it is now a strong proxy for Democratic voting. Republicans adopted the Southern Strategy of appealing to the least-educated of white voters and ended up alienating the most-educated of voters whatever their origin. Except for not winning the Plains states and Mormon country, Obama wins look much like Eisenhower wins. Educated people are the swing voters between the 1950s and now.

Look closely at an Eisenhower win. The more middle-class a state was, the better Eisenhower did. Ike actually won three of the states normally toughest for Republican nominees for President then and now: Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island. Not since 1924 has any Republican other than Eisenhower won all three states at once, but he won all three -- twice. Ike did not do so well in the Mountain and Deep South, where Obama did about as badly as McGovern.

Republicans need to give up on the white ignoramus vote; it no longer is large enough to win a national election. It's impossible to show contempt for liberal learning and win the respect of people who see formal education as necessary for avoiding poverty. It is worth remembering: the Asian, black, and Hispanic middle class are all well educated.     
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: What are Democrats doing right/Republicans doing wrong in MI, WI & MN? on: April 16, 2016, 08:14:00 am
Wisconsin is extremely polarized, but Democrats have an edge in most statewide elections. Minnesota is arguably the most stable state in its polling. In a really-horrible year for Republicans (2008) Obama won the Presidential election in Minnesota about 55-44. In a really bad year for Democrats (1972 or 1984), Minnesota goes about 50-50.  Minnesota just does not swing much in raw vote.

Michigan differs from Minnesota and Wisconsin in having far more blacks. What are Republicans doing wrong in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? Failing to reshape the political culture. They cannot arrange things so that if you want public works or even a job you need to do so on Republican terms.     
131  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 15, 2016, 06:04:51 pm
Dislike this poll? Then wait for another. I've seen polls like that for Pennsylvania.
132  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 15, 2016, 03:33:55 pm
This reminds of that poll that said Obama was going to win Arizona in 2012.

It also reminds me of all the disbelief that I had about Barack Obama winning either Indiana or Virginia, neither state having voted for any Democratic Presidential nominee since 1964, in 2008 in what looked like a close election.

I can say this: if Georgia goes for any Democrat in 2016, then a landslide is in the making. Georgia, the second-closest loss for Obama in 2008, would have put him at 391 electoral votes.   
133  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kasich: Don't drink alcohol if you don't want to get raped on: April 15, 2016, 03:06:00 pm
What's with Republicans and rape?

It's still good advice -- tell your kids who are too young to drink alcoholic beverages to avoid places in which people are drinking heavily. Alcohol kills inhibitions to a man's sex drive and takes away a girl's ability to resist unwelcome sex. Alcohol almost qualifies as a date-rape drug.

I'm a Democrat, and I fully endorse that message. 
134  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: NOTE: How to enter 2016 polls to the database (at the moment) on: April 15, 2016, 12:15:00 pm
I'm still showing maps of matchups -- and I add (I doubt that I will add anyone anymore) possible nominees as they appear relevant or drop them as they become irrelevant (as they drop out or get defeated, as most recently Marco Rubio did). 

 
135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FOX National Poll: Clinton leads Trump, close race with Cruz, trails Kasich on: April 15, 2016, 12:09:27 pm
I'm still surprised Cruz seems to be holding his own against Hillary. He usually is between 3-4 points behind her and idk if that's just a not Trump effect, but he could be on track to do a little better than Romney.

Trump can make Ted Cruz, let alone John Kasich, look "not that bad").
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Marist/NBC4 MD Poll: Clinton up on all GOP challengers on: April 15, 2016, 12:07:48 pm
McCain and Romney lost 62-36, so not terrible numbers for Cruz. Great numbers for Kasich, though

Numbers for usually-solid states can show the weaknesses of some Presidential nominees. Except for the freakish situation in Indiana in 2008 (the worst economic meltdown in nearly 80 years, and a horrible time for the RV business due to the combination of a credit crunch and high fuel prices as well as an overall downturn in the economy which caused places like Elkhart to go Democratic) , it is safe to say that the Republican winning by 15% or more in Indiana is probably winning nationwide. By 10%? He's probably losing nationwide. 

Invert this for Maryland.
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Kasich beats Clinton in CT (Emerson) on: April 15, 2016, 09:40:36 am
I wonder how formidable Trump-Kasich would be at this point. I know VP usually adds nothing, but these are staggering numbers. Attaching his name to Trump might cancel it out though.

Not in the least. The VP choice matters greatly to the positive only if the Presidential nominee is in suspect health or advanced age. Otherwise...

Remember 1988? Mike Dukakis selected Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) , one of the best-respected politicians of the time, to be Vice-President.  He lost Texas... big.  The Republican nominee for President was domiciled in Texas.

On the other side, the VP choice can hurt. George McGovern was going to lose in 1972 because other realities (then-popular and apparently effective incumbent; being cast as an extremist; failure to express the chest-pounding patriotism of the "Silent Majority"; underfunded campaign), but he first picked Eagleton for VP. Eagleton had a big problem with alcohol. Eagleton dropped out as such was disclosed, and McGovern turned to Sargent Shriver, who had never run for high office. Dan Quayle got ripped for intellectual shallowness, which he got away with in 1988 but not in 1992. Then of course there is Sarah Palin.

It is wiser to pick a VP for ideological consistency (Al Gore, for Bill Clinton, even if they are from neighboring and politically-similar states) or administrative ability (Dick Cheney, who was of marginal value as a campaigner).

Somehow I think that Donald Trump will pick someone obscure.
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 14, 2016, 09:33:42 pm
How insignificant is Georgia to this Presidential race? It's the mirror image of Michigan, a state which the Democrat must have as a decisive win to have a real chance at the Presidency. The Senate seat will matter more in Georgia.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Obama could have lost Michigan and still won very comfortably.

However, I suspect you meant in a scenario where Ohio and Florida were far from guaranteed, then yeah, losing Michigan would be very risky. But there are a lot of alternative paths for Democrats to take for an EC win.

By that criterion there are theoretical ways for the Democrat to win the Presidency without California, but those suggest huge shifts in voting patterns not easily contained in California alone.

True, but that would practically take a reversion to to the pattern of state voting in 1976. Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic nominee to win Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina -- and the last Democratic nominee to lose California, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Michigan, Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine and still win the Presidency. That would happen again if the Republicans and Democrats ended up with the same constituencies that they had in the 1970s... which is highly unlikely.
139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 14, 2016, 04:28:24 pm
Junk....

The Democratic nominee for President can win without Georgia. If Georgia is at all close, then the Democrats are winning nationwide. Likewise Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and North Carolina.  The Democratic nominee is winning Florida and North Carolina if he has a chance of winning Georgia. He's winning Colorado and Nevada if he has a chance of winning Arizona. He's winning Ohio if he is winning either Indiana or Missouri.

How insignificant is Georgia to this Presidential race? It's the mirror image of Michigan, a state which the Democrat must have as a decisive win to have a real chance at the Presidency. The Senate seat will matter more in Georgia.
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Why is The USA shifting leftward on: April 14, 2016, 11:21:22 am
The days of "law and order", and the 50s style households are long over. 

"Law and order" in the sense of brutal treatment of offenders and suspects is going out of style. Liberals believe in law and order as a necessity for a decent social order. They no longer believe that criminals are 'poor, misguided, oppressed people' people who need a little enlightenment and the alleviation of the miserable conditions in which they live.

Criminals are almost all simply evil people, people of either sadistic cruelty, unrestrained anger, or reckless contempt for the safety of others. Example: Don Blankenship, coal baron, who put profit above the safety of miners and was convicted of crimes related to such.   If we want to deal with poverty, we need do so out of humanitarian principle instead of targeting those who would do us harm as beneficiaries of largesse.

... what is more significant is that people whom Republicans might have won if they did not go to their anti-intellectual and nativist demagoguery, people who might want lower taxes and more lenient regulation of their businesses, have been voting Democratic.   
141  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Future West Virginia's? on: April 14, 2016, 11:14:16 am
Virginia could be the inverse of West Virginia. I could also make the case that New Mexico is, too.

Missouri could be an analogue, if a bit later. Southern Missouri is much like West Virginia.

... an inverse in a few years? Maybe Arizona due to population change.  Indiana has some cultural similarities to nearby states (IL, MI, OH) that have steadily drifted D in Presidential politics; it is simply more rural than the others. South Bend is about as D as fairly-close Kalamazoo, and Indianapolis is about as D as Cincinnati.   

142  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 14, 2016, 10:22:00 am
Could the entire south be in play? Holy crap.

Of course -- if white Southerners are going back to the partisan patterns normal when Jimmy Carter was President, Hillary Clinton could be on the way to a 450-EV win in November.  But if only as they were in the 1990s? We could see her pick up every state that Bill Clinton ever won in the 1990s except perhaps Montana -- but win Virginia.

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012   



Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

Let the Republicans have everything in blue, and  only everything in blue (maybe exchanging Alabama for Arizona), and the Republicans have a nightmare -- their worst election since at least 1964 for the Presidency.

I'm not saying that this happens.

This map is even messier, if only less decisive a Democratic Presidential win:




deep blue -- all elections for the Republican
medium blue --  all but one election for the Republican (but once for Obama)
pale blue -- all but once for the Republicans (but once for Clinton)
deep green -- Clinton twice, but Obama losing by more than 10% twice
medium green -- Clinton twice, Obama barely losing once
yellow -- Clinton once, Obama twice
tan -- Clinton never, Obama twice
medium red -- all but one election for the Democrat
deep red -- all elections for the Democrat

white -- always went for the winner  (Clinton twice, George W. Bush twice, Obama)

...imagine anything not in dark blue, and the Republican nominee still faces the worst landslide loss for a Republican since 1964. 

143  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 13, 2016, 06:22:02 pm
I don't know if I fully trust this one. Unless the Republican nominee is a complete turkey*, no way do I expect Georgia to go for the Democratic nominee for President. On the other hand, Georgia leans about as R as Missouri, where a recent poll shows Clinton leading Trump. Georgia is more D (and probably more elastic) than Mississippi and Texas, where Hillary Clinton is within the margin of error in another poll. (Not that I trust any poll of Texas!)  Georgia is not much more R than North Carolina, and the most recent poll of North Carolina shows Clinton  leading both Trump and Cruz. But not this much!

But this said, Georgia was Barack Obama's second-closest loss in both 2008 and 2012. I'd like to see another poll corroborate or contradict this. If Hillary Clinton is winning Georgia, then she is on the way to winning at least 390 electoral votes.  Dislike this poll? then just wait for another. The most recent poll of Georgia is stale.

*Then again, what if he is?
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 13, 2016, 04:53:23 pm
Georgia: Lake Research Partners


http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf

Clinton 50
Trump 37

Clinton 47
Cruz 40

I don't know if I fully trust this one. Unless the Republican nominee is a complete turkey, no way do I expect Georgia to go for the Democratic nominee for President. On the other hand, Georgia leans about as R as Missouri, where a recent poll shows Clinton leading Trump. Georgia is more D (and probably more elastic) than Mississippi and Texas, where Hillary Clinton is within the margin of error in another poll. (Not that I trust any poll of Texas!)  Georgia is not much more R than North Carolina, and the most recent poll of North Carolina shows Clinton  leading both Trump and Cruz. But not this much!

But this said, Georgia was Barack Obama's second-closest loss in both 2008 and 2012. I'd like to see another poll corroborate or contradict this. If Hillary Clinton is winning Georgia, then she is on the way to winning at least 390 electoral votes.  Dislike this poll? then just wait for another. The most recent poll of Georgia is stale.

Nothing on Kasich or Sanders.

New York, Emerson University.


Hillary Clinton (D): 55% vs. Donald Trump (R): 36% (D+19%)
Bernie Sanders (D): 51% vs. Donald Trump (R): 37% (D+14%)
Hillary Clinton (D): 59%  vs. Ted Cruz (R): 28% (D+31%)
Bernie Sanders (D): 58% vs. Ted Cruz (R): 27% (D+31%)
Hillary Clinton (D): 49% vs.  John Kasich (R): 39%  (D+10%)
 
http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_9be49212aa1f45efb06ed31243e26ad1.pdf

New polling from the battleground state of Utah....

Trump 38%
Clinton 38%
.
Cruz 67%
Clinton 26%
.
Kasich 69%
Clinton 23%



http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/today-at-utah-policy/9193-

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.





145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: GA: Clinton dominates on: April 13, 2016, 04:34:42 pm
o_O What is this? Electoral shift?

The era of Trump

Who exactly are the GEORGIA voters that you think are defecting over Trump?  LOL.

People tiring of the Republican majority in the House?

People who distrust the demagoguery of Donald Trump?

People scared of the reactionary agenda of Ted Cruz?


...Dubya was an awful President, but at the least he knew when to keep his mouth shut and about what during a campaign. Could Cruz and Trump be less adept campaigners than Dubya?
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Kasich beats Clinton in CT (Emerson) on: April 12, 2016, 03:29:02 pm
CT polls are garbage. Obama was supposed to only barely win CT instead of winning it by over 17%.

Connecticut toys with Republican nominees for President only to swing far away from them as the election approaches. See also Michigan.
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 12, 2016, 03:26:55 pm
Connecticut:

Sanders (D) 65%
Trump (R) 26%

Sanders (D) 55%
Kasich (R) 36%

Sanders (D) 63%
Cruz (R) 28%

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_a087ef7328134746b90ffd87f80c439e.pdf

Maryland -- Marist, WRC-TV (Washington DC, NBC-4

Sanders (D) 65%
Trump (R) 26%

Sanders (D) 55%
Kasich (R) 36%

Sanders (D) 63%
Cruz (R) 28%


http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/NBC4_Marist+Poll_Maryland_+Presidential_Annotated+Questionnaire_April+2016.pdf




Massachusetts:

Sanders-Trump: 70-23% (D+47)
Sanders-Cruz: 71-24% (D+47)

http://patch.com/massachusetts/boston/new-mass-poll-shows-sanders-clinton-cream-trump-hypothetical-head-head-0

Would Massachusetts try to secede if Trump or Cruz got elected over Sanders?


New York (state), PPP:

 
Bernie Sanders (D): 58%
Donald Trump (R): 33%

Bernie Sanders (D): 59%
Ted Cruz (R): 27%

Bernie Sanders (D): 54%
John Kasich (R): 35%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/04/new-york-hates-ted-cruz-trump-clinton-lead-big.html

Bernie Sanders vs. Ted Cruz




Bernie Sanders vs. John Kasich




Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Cleaned-up 2016 Presidential election map. on: April 12, 2016, 03:23:03 pm
Connecticut:

John Kasich (R): 49%
Hillary Clinton (D): 38%

Hillary Clinton (D): 48%
Donald Trump (R): 40%

Hillary Clinton (D): 52%
Ted Cruz (R): 31%


http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_a087ef7328134746b90ffd87f80c439e.pdf

Maryland -- Marist, WRC-TV (Washington DC, NBC-4

Clinton (D) 63%
Trump (R) 27%

Clinton (D) 55%
Kasich (R) 38%

Clinton (D) 60%
Cruz (R) 31%


http://media.nbcwashington.com/documents/NBC4_Marist+Poll_Maryland_+Presidential_Annotated+Questionnaire_April+2016.pdf

Massachusetts:

Clinton-Trump: 62-26%  (D+36)
Clinton-Cruz: 63-30% (D+33)


http://patch.com/massachusetts/boston/new-mass-poll-shows-sanders-clinton-cream-trump-hypothetical-head-head-0

New York (State), PPP:

Hillary Clinton (D): 55%
Donald Trump (R): 35%

Hillary Clinton (D): 56%
Ted Cruz (R): 30%

Hillary Clinton (D): 50%
John Kasich (R): 36%



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/04/new-york-hates-ted-cruz-trump-clinton-lead-big.html

Hillary Clinton(D) vs. Ted Cruz (R)




Hillary Clinton vs. John Kasich





Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump



30% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 3% or less
40% -- lead with 40-49% but a margin of 4% or more
60% -- lead with 50-54%
70% -- lead with 55-59%
90% -- lead with 60% or more

White -- tie or  someone leading with less than 40%.




149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: General Election-Clinton vs. Cruz on: April 12, 2016, 06:44:31 am
I remember a news story by Tom Brokaw, a television journalist not given to hyperbole, say of some then-obscure Illinois State Senator with a strange surname, "Watch this man!"

It was Barack H. Obama.

In a year he will be President Emeritus, and in view of the roles that Nixon, Ford, Carter, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton have taken the only way in which he does not have a big role on the world stage so long as he has some vigor will be if he is a Justice of the Supreme Court. 
150  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Warren G. Harding on: April 11, 2016, 11:33:48 pm
He gets a bad rap. 

And he deserves it. Corrupt and shallow; worst President between the start of the 20th century (America was very different before 1900 in its politics) and Dubya, the worst since Buchanan.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 524


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines