Fox News national: Clinton leads Bush, Christie, Kasich, & Paul by double digits
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:17:08 AM
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 General Election Polls
  Fox News national: Clinton leads Bush, Christie, Kasich, & Paul by double digits
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Fox News national: Clinton leads Bush, Christie, Kasich, & Paul by double digits  (Read 1673 times)
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 28, 2014, 09:17:46 PM »

Fox News national poll:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/07/28/fox-news-polls-midterm-elections-2016-presidential-matchups/

Clinton 50%
Christie 40%

Clinton 52%
Bush 39%

Clinton 54%
Kasich 35%

Clinton 52%
Paul 41%
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2014, 09:24:26 PM »

lol, not even FOX can get the Republicans within single digits.
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2014, 10:38:25 PM »

lol, not even FOX can get the Republicans within single digits.

Darn.

Also, I'm surprised that they polled Kasich this far out.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2014, 11:02:26 PM »

Christie vs. Clinton crosstabs:

whites: Christie +3
blacks: Clinton +76
Hispanics: Clinton +29
college degree: Clinton +13
no college degree: Clinton +9
under age 35: Clinton +30
age 35-54: Christie +3
age 55+: Clinton +11
age 65+: Clinton +4
under $50k salary: Clinton +19
over $50k salary: Clinton +3
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2014, 11:48:29 PM »

Say what you want about FoX News as a source, its polling source (Opinion Dynamics) has been spot-on in recent elections. 

Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2014, 12:20:16 AM »

No surprise yet.  In about 8 months when Clinton's approvals have come back to earth, if she's still leading by this amount I'll be impressed.
Logged
BaconBacon96
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,678
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2014, 01:35:51 AM »

Interesting that they polled Kasich.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2014, 07:16:25 AM »


FoX News heavily plugged Kasich for the 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

...The strongest Democratic win of the Presidency in a binary election (Bill Clinton had Ross Perot helping take some usual GOP votes in 1992 and 1996) since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, and that was about a 7% edge. These splits suggest Eisenhower-scale wins of either 1952 or 1956.

Ike won 39 of 48 states in 1952 and 41 of 48 states in 1956. 
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2014, 12:45:24 PM »


FoX News heavily plugged Kasich for the 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

...The strongest Democratic win of the Presidency in a binary election (Bill Clinton had Ross Perot helping take some usual GOP votes in 1992 and 1996) since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, and that was about a 7% edge. These splits suggest Eisenhower-scale wins of either 1952 or 1956.

Ike won 39 of 48 states in 1952 and 41 of 48 states in 1956. 

While I do anticipate she will win I doubt it would be by double digits once the race tightened. However with these spreads I would be curious what the map would look like. This would indicate she is picking up quite a bit of red states here. Likely stronger strength in the south. Does she take 40 states if the popular vote spread is double digits?
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2014, 12:51:03 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2014, 01:13:50 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog

It is an interesting question as to why Hillary does so much better than Obama with the olds but poorer with the GenXers. Could it simply be identity politics. Obama is seen as a Gen Xer and Hillary is a fellow old?

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2014, 02:18:46 PM »

This is what a double-digit Clinton win probably looks like. Assuming that the Q polls for Florida which show her with double-digit leads are nearly valid (historically, the Democratic ceiling for Florida is 52%l LBJ barely won the state in 1964), so far as I can tell. It would look much like an Eisenhower win in the 1950s:



She picks up everything along and east of the Mississippi River except for Alabama. Texas is the closest state, and it makes the difference between the Republican winning 36 and 74 electoral votes. By 9PM east coast time, Republicans start spiking the ratings for hockey and basketball games... or old movies.

Pale colors are for wins under 4%, middle colors are for wins by 4% to 9.999%;  dark colors are for wins by margins over 10%.   
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2014, 02:28:12 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog

It is an interesting question as to why Hillary does so much better than Obama with the olds but poorer with the GenXers. Could it simply be identity politics. Obama is seen as a Gen Xer and Hillary is a fellow old?



Gen X seems like it does it's own thing, so it doesn't surprise me that they are the outliers  in this crosstab.

This is what a double-digit Clinton win probably looks like. Assuming that the Q polls for Florida which show her with double-digit leads are nearly valid (historically, the Democratic ceiling for Florida is 52%l LBJ barely won the state in 1964), so far as I can tell. It would look much like an Eisenhower win in the 1950s:



She picks up everything along and east of the Mississippi River except for Alabama. Texas is the closest state, and it makes the difference between the Republican winning 36 and 74 electoral votes. By 9PM east coast time, Republicans start spiking the ratings for hockey and basketball games... or old movies.

Pale colors are for wins under 4%, middle colors are for wins by 4% to 9.999%;  dark colors are for wins by margins over 10%.   

This is definitely a map that I wouldn't rule out. Maybe ND would be pale blue or pale pink and MS pale blue, but I'm guessing that you were working off of polling for this, so it's just a tiny quibble on my part.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2014, 02:44:15 PM »

No surprise yet.  In about 8 months when Clinton's approvals have come back to earth, if she's still leading by this amount I'll be impressed.

They already have came back down to earth.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2014, 02:53:17 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog

It is an interesting question as to why Hillary does so much better than Obama with the olds but poorer with the GenXers. Could it simply be identity politics. Obama is seen as a Gen Xer and Hillary is a fellow old?



It's hard to tell how Obama did with Gen X. The '12 exit polls have different age splits, with Gen X spread between 30-44-year-olds (Obama by 7) and 45-64-year-olds (Romney by 4). I think there's split within Gen X itself, in that older members of that age bloc were some of the youngest Reagan voters, while younger members were big Clinton backers.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2014, 03:01:34 PM »

But there is a clear correlation between age and Obama support, you could draw a straight line on a graph for it with the even finer age breakdowns. But for Clinton it is more of a curve with support with the youngs and olds but not as much in the middle. It is interesting.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2014, 04:24:17 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog

It is an interesting question as to why Hillary does so much better than Obama with the olds but poorer with the GenXers. Could it simply be identity politics. Obama is seen as a Gen Xer and Hillary is a fellow old?



If one goes with the generational theory of Howe and Strauss, then Barack Obama (born 1961) is from the first year of births of Generation X. He is not going to formulate great new pronouncements of morality. People slightly older than he can do that quite well. He is more a pragmatist than a moralizer. Dispatching Osama bin Laden with a gangland-style hit establishes that he is no Boomer. The style suggests Al Capone, who did things that way to his rivals and those who crossed him.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boomers spoke often of 'doing your own thing' when they were young. They clamped down on that once Generation X tried that and did what Boomers would have never done. Boomers generally pretended to great moral objectives; Generation X did what they did out of unabashed hedonism. Generation X can be counted on to do what it does out of self-interest or the interest of loved ones younger than themselves.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is definitely a map that I wouldn't rule out. Maybe ND would be pale blue or pale pink and MS pale blue, but I'm guessing that you were working off of polling for this, so it's just a tiny quibble on my part.

Remember: we haven't seen a Democrat win the Presidency by a margin of 10% to 15% in a two-way race or so since FDR beat Willkie in 1940. That does not count the LBJ blowout. Clinton won by about 10% in 1996, but probably because Perot siphoned off several million votes that ordinarily went Republican. FDR won by 7.5% in 1944 and Obama won by 7.2% in 2008.  If anyone agrees with my model for a 10%-12% win for Hillary Clinton, then I am amazed. Tiny quibbles are effective concurrence.

I didn't say that it was going to happen. Barack Obama won by Reagan-like landslide margins in about 20 states and lost by Mondale-like landslide margins in about 15 states in 2008. That is unlikely to ever be repeated for decades.  But if it does happen, the electoral map is more likely to resemble my proposition than just about anything else. To get such results, Hillary Clinton must keep the Obama 2008 coalition intact -- and recover the sorts of voters that Carter convinced in 1976 that haven't gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 2000. That is asking for a lot. It could happen. I just don't see it happening yet.

   

 
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2014, 04:41:45 PM »

Olds tend to not like blacks.
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2014, 04:51:34 PM »

But, but... what about Benghazi?? Surprise 
Logged
Never
Never Convinced
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,623
Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: 3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2014, 06:47:58 PM »

GenXers sure don't like Hilldog

It is an interesting question as to why Hillary does so much better than Obama with the olds but poorer with the GenXers. Could it simply be identity politics. Obama is seen as a Gen Xer and Hillary is a fellow old?



If one goes with the generational theory of Howe and Strauss, then Barack Obama (born 1961) is from the first year of births of Generation X. He is not going to formulate great new pronouncements of morality. People slightly older than he can do that quite well. He is more a pragmatist than a moralizer. Dispatching Osama bin Laden with a gangland-style hit establishes that he is no Boomer. The style suggests Al Capone, who did things that way to his rivals and those who crossed him.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Boomers spoke often of 'doing your own thing' when they were young. They clamped down on that once Generation X tried that and did what Boomers would have never done. Boomers generally pretended to great moral objectives; Generation X did what they did out of unabashed hedonism. Generation X can be counted on to do what it does out of self-interest or the interest of loved ones younger than themselves.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is definitely a map that I wouldn't rule out. Maybe ND would be pale blue or pale pink and MS pale blue, but I'm guessing that you were working off of polling for this, so it's just a tiny quibble on my part.

Remember: we haven't seen a Democrat win the Presidency by a margin of 10% to 15% in a two-way race or so since FDR beat Willkie in 1940. That does not count the LBJ blowout. Clinton won by about 10% in 1996, but probably because Perot siphoned off several million votes that ordinarily went Republican. FDR won by 7.5% in 1944 and Obama won by 7.2% in 2008.  If anyone agrees with my model for a 10%-12% win for Hillary Clinton, then I am amazed. Tiny quibbles are effective concurrence.

I didn't say that it was going to happen. Barack Obama won by Reagan-like landslide margins in about 20 states and lost by Mondale-like landslide margins in about 15 states in 2008. That is unlikely to ever be repeated for decades.  But if it does happen, the electoral map is more likely to resemble my proposition than just about anything else. To get such results, Hillary Clinton must keep the Obama 2008 coalition intact -- and recover the sorts of voters that Carter convinced in 1976 that haven't gone for a Democratic nominee for President since 2000. That is asking for a lot. It could happen. I just don't see it happening yet.

   

 

Well, I feel that anything could happen this far out, so I wouldn't write off a double-digit for Clinton. Maybe I'm pessimistic about Republican chances in 2016, but I just feel that Clinton will win decisively if she runs. While a win of the magnitude that your map displayed might not happen, I see Hillary as a unique candidate with potential electoral advantages that Obama did not necessarily possess. For one, being a credible female politician who would become the first female president if elected probably gives her room to build significantly on Obama's numbers with women. The scenario envisioned through your map probably is asking for a lot, but a great deal can happen in a very short time frame. Of course, that line of thought could be used to argue against your map, but Clinton does seem quite formidable.

I thought that your map was a realistic interpretation of Clinton's current position, so I don't want to rule it out.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2014, 06:50:18 PM »

This is what a double-digit Clinton win probably looks like. Assuming that the Q polls for Florida which show her with double-digit leads are nearly valid (historically, the Democratic ceiling for Florida is 52%l LBJ barely won the state in 1964), so far as I can tell. It would look much like an Eisenhower win in the 1950s:



She picks up everything along and east of the Mississippi River except for Alabama. Texas is the closest state, and it makes the difference between the Republican winning 36 and 74 electoral votes. By 9PM east coast time, Republicans start spiking the ratings for hockey and basketball games... or old movies.

Pale colors are for wins under 4%, middle colors are for wins by 4% to 9.999%;  dark colors are for wins by margins over 10%.   
She'd win Alaska before winning most of the states you have her winning.
Logged
bballrox4717
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 949


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2014, 08:43:51 PM »

This is what a double-digit Clinton win probably looks like. Assuming that the Q polls for Florida which show her with double-digit leads are nearly valid (historically, the Democratic ceiling for Florida is 52%l LBJ barely won the state in 1964), so far as I can tell. It would look much like an Eisenhower win in the 1950s:



She picks up everything along and east of the Mississippi River except for Alabama. Texas is the closest state, and it makes the difference between the Republican winning 36 and 74 electoral votes. By 9PM east coast time, Republicans start spiking the ratings for hockey and basketball games... or old movies.

Pale colors are for wins under 4%, middle colors are for wins by 4% to 9.999%;  dark colors are for wins by margins over 10%.   
She'd win Alaska before winning most of the states you have her winning.

Agreed. Even with a 12 percent margin of victory, this is what I have Hillary's max performance as:

Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.06 seconds with 13 queries.