Could Hillary win Missouri and not Colorado?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 08:59:51 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Could Hillary win Missouri and not Colorado?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Could she?
#1
Yessir
 
#2
No way
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 67

Author Topic: Could Hillary win Missouri and not Colorado?  (Read 3718 times)
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2014, 06:36:04 PM »

Yes, but it's unlikely.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,857
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2014, 12:13:01 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2014, 01:44:24 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!), but the fact is that poll after poll shows Hillary at the very least competitive in states like Missouri and Arkansas.  If Obama can almost win Missouri, Hillary can.  And if you think Colorado is some deep blue state now, I think you're quite mistaken.

You're kind of off base here. It's actually because many of the Democrats here dislike Hillary, and thus try to diminish her obvious electability advantage to make her a less appealing candidate. Some have even said Hillary would perform worse in Arkansas than Obama did...lol.
Logged
Old Man Willow
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,698
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2014, 01:59:19 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2014, 02:57:37 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,209
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2014, 03:01:31 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.
Pretty sure I'm Batman.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2014, 06:04:08 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

He's talking about your obsessive hatred of Hillary, duh. Weren't you the guy who said she'd lose to Ted Cruz?
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,600
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2014, 06:13:28 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

He's talking about your obsessive hatred of Hillary, duh. Weren't you the guy who said she'd lose to Ted Cruz?

I like to think of myself as something of an authority on who I hate and I neither hate her nor have I ever had an "obsessive hatred" of anyone at any point in my life.  And no, I never said she'd lose to Ted Cruz.  In fact, I'm pretty confident she'd wipe the floor with him (so would a bag of doorknobs, but there you go Tongue ).  However, seeing as Cruz won't be the Republican nominee, her ability to defeat him is irrelevant.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,840
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2014, 06:19:42 PM »

I could be the first Jewish Pope in theory, but...

You liberals want SO desperately for no Democrat ever to be able to compete in a so-called redneck state that you view as inferior (then you couldn't have such false elitism!)

You want SO desperately to paint a narrative on the liberals of the forum that doesn't exist. Liberals may not like Missouri because it is so socially conservative (also redneck (your words, not mine)), but they would be more than happy to see the Democrats pick up even more territory and further expand their dominance.

Pretty sure Malcolm would prefer Hillary to lose all 50 states for his personal satisfaction.

Pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about.

He's talking about your obsessive hatred of Hillary, duh. Weren't you the guy who said she'd lose to Ted Cruz?

I like to think of myself as something of an authority on who I hate and I neither hate her nor have I ever had an "obsessive hatred" of anyone at any point in my life.  And no, I never said she'd lose to Ted Cruz.  In fact, I'm pretty confident she'd wipe the floor with him (so would a bag of doorknobs, but there you go Tongue ).  However, seeing as Cruz won't be the Republican nominee, her ability to defeat him is irrelevant.

I just checked, and yeah that wasn't you. I think I got confused since the guy who said it also had a D-OH avatar. My bad.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 01, 2014, 10:22:47 AM »

In Election 2012, the spread between Missouri and Colorado were 14.72 percent.

Missouri: R+9.36
Colorado: D+5.36

Aside from this thread's poll, how many of the Atlas Forum members are seriously thinking—if we do get a President Hillary Clinton with Election 2016 (in what would be a Democratic hold)—that Missouri is going to shift at least 9.37 percent Democratic while Colorado is going to shift at least 5.37 percent Republican?

Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 01, 2014, 10:32:07 AM »

To be honest, Missouri seems to be trending Republican possibly due to social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and gun control. The only way I see Hillary Clinton winning Missouri is if she downplays her more liberal views on those issues.

It's the women of Missouri.

The men in Missouri were right on par with the national numbers of both 2008 (48 percent vs. national 49 percent for Barack Obama) and 2012 (43 percent vs. national 45 percent for President Obama). The women conspicuously underperformed in both elections (50 percent vs. national 56 percent for Barack Obama in 2008; 45 percent vs. national 55 percent for a re-elected President Obama in 2012).
Logged
Old Man Willow
ShadowOfTheWave
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,698
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 02, 2014, 04:00:19 PM »

What about Hillary winning AZ but not CO? The latest AZ polls from PPP showed her doing well there.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.239 seconds with 13 queries.