2016 Democratic Nomination Poll - December 2014

[Yelnoc]

~14 months from the first primaries, what do you think? Will Hillary be nominated like "everyone expects" or will another Democrat win the nomination?

[Kraxner]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

[IceSpear]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

The owner of Daily Kos actually supports Hillary now, lol.

Oh how times have changed...

[Kraxner]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

The owner of Daily Kos actually supports Hillary now, lol.

Oh how times have changed...

Perhaps he realized hillary has a better chance of winning?



If they exchange the candidate with a better chance of winning for a purer candidate. Then the democrats will be crushed in the general election.


Consider that Obama was supposed to be that pure candidate IN 2008!!!!!


Contrary to what the left thinks, A warren/sanders ticket will not get a landslide just by campaigning on

The bankers, the bonuses, the bankers, the bonuses, the bonuses, the bankers.


Thats actually a shortcut to making Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin a swing state in 2016 and Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, a near certainly regardless of whichever republican runs.

[The_Doctor]

The owner of Daily Kos supports Hillary because he, like everyone else, is on the Democratic bandwagon for Hillary. He also doesn't see anyone else winning, most likely. It's a mix of both Clinton's gravitational pull on the Party and the fear that anyone but Hillary would lose.

[The_Doctor]

Also the fact that the poll is "Hillary" and "Not Hillary" 14 months before a major nomination is up tells you everything about the primary. Possibly the general election too.

Note -- I've never heard of a party nomination being essentially uncontested by a non-incumbent in the post-World War II era. I think you have to go back to 1928 (Herbert Hoover?) to see an example of that. Ironically, Hoover was also a Cabinet Secretary.

Wikipedia informs that Herbert Hoover had some opposition, but it was largely token? I don't know if anyone knows about the 1928 race well enough.

[justfollowingtheelections]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

[Bull Moose Base]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

On what issues do you prefer Hillary to the GOP but the GOP to O'Malley?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

The owner of Daily Kos actually supports Hillary now, lol.

Oh how times have changed...

Perhaps he realized hillary has a better chance of winning?



If they exchange the candidate with a better chance of winning for a purer candidate. Then the democrats will be crushed in the general election.


Consider that Obama was supposed to be that pure candidate IN 2008!!!!!


Contrary to what the left thinks, A warren/sanders ticket will not get a landslide just by campaigning on

The bankers, the bonuses, the bankers, the bonuses, the bonuses, the bankers.


Thats actually a shortcut to making Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin a swing state in 2016 and Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, a near certainly regardless of whichever republican runs.

Karxner: So you'd vote for a far-right candidate such as Ted Cruz or Michele Bachmann over O'Malley, but you'd vote for Hillary over any republican? The ideological difference between O'Malley and Hillary is MUCH less than said difference between Hillary and Cruz/Bachmann.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

[justfollowingtheelections]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

[KCDem]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

His point is that you know nothing about politics.

[Mehmentum]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

The point is that in 2008 there were potential candidates with a significant amount of support aside from Hillary.  In 2006, people could point to John Edwards or Barack Obama as potential challengers with significant support.

At this point the only people aside from Clinton who get above 5% are Biden (who isn't going to run) and Warren (who probably won't run).  Correct me if I'm wrong, but while there are plenty of examples of people coming from behind to win, I don't think any of those examples involve people polling between 4% and 1% beating someone polling at 50+%.

[justfollowingtheelections]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

[justfollowingtheelections]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

The point is that in 2008 there were potential candidates with a significant amount of support aside from Hillary.  In 2006, people could point to John Edwards or Barack Obama as potential challengers with significant support.

At this point the only people aside from Clinton who get above 5% are Biden (who isn't going to run) and Warren (who probably won't run).  Correct me if I'm wrong, but while there are plenty of examples of people coming from behind to win, I don't think any of those examples involve people polling between 4% and 1% beating someone polling at 50+%.

So are you absolutely sure that Hilary will the nomination?

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

That depends. Does the risk only kick in once she declares? Because there's still a small chance she doesn't run. Even though it's small, it's magnitudes higher than the chance of her getting defeated in the primary.

Assuming she runs, the only way I'd see her not winning the nomination would be if she gets hit with a mega scandal and has to drop out, or dies before the DNC. So yes, I would make that bet. Obviously you can never be 100% certain about anything, but I'll put it this way: if she runs, she has about as much of a chance of losing the nomination as James Lankford does of losing re-election.

[Kraxner]

If democrats dont nominate Hillary then they willingly forfeited the moderate vote in favor of the liberal-left wing of the democratic party, which only compose 20% of the voting public in retrospect.

I'm still a registered democrat and IF she runs i'll be voting for her regardless of what democraticunderground,dailykos, alternet, TPM, or heck even msnbc says.

If she doesnt run or loses the nomination to a far left candidate whether it be O'malley, Warren or sanders. Then this will be the first time i'm voting republican.

The owner of Daily Kos actually supports Hillary now, lol.

Oh how times have changed...

Perhaps he realized hillary has a better chance of winning?



If they exchange the candidate with a better chance of winning for a purer candidate. Then the democrats will be crushed in the general election.


Consider that Obama was supposed to be that pure candidate IN 2008!!!!!


Contrary to what the left thinks, A warren/sanders ticket will not get a landslide just by campaigning on

The bankers, the bonuses, the bankers, the bonuses, the bonuses, the bankers.


Thats actually a shortcut to making Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin a swing state in 2016 and Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, a near certainly regardless of whichever republican runs.

Karxner: So you'd vote for a far-right candidate such as Ted Cruz or Michele Bachmann over O'Malley, but you'd vote for Hillary over any republican? The ideological difference between O'Malley and Hillary is MUCH less than said difference between Hillary and Cruz/Bachmann.

I'd rather vote for cruz then the rest of the democratic candidates if Hillary isnt the candidate, Hillary is the only one i have faith in on remaining on the center and not swinging too far to the left.

Besides the post-2012 platform for democrats and increasing usage of class warfare and identity politics, the gun derangement syndrome and even the growing support for socialism within the democratic base, have caused me totally consider shifting my allegiance anyway. 

[Mehmentum]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

The point is that in 2008 there were potential candidates with a significant amount of support aside from Hillary.  In 2006, people could point to John Edwards or Barack Obama as potential challengers with significant support.

At this point the only people aside from Clinton who get above 5% are Biden (who isn't going to run) and Warren (who probably won't run).  Correct me if I'm wrong, but while there are plenty of examples of people coming from behind to win, I don't think any of those examples involve people polling between 4% and 1% beating someone polling at 50+%.

So are you absolutely sure that Hilary will the nomination?

Obviously you can never be absolutely, 100% sure of anything.  There isn't a 100% chance that the sun will rise tomorrow, so saying that there is less than a 100% chance of Hillary winning the nomination means basically nothing since that applies to any statement that isn't true by definition.

I'd rate her chances at 95%, quite a bit of that is if she doesn't run or dies.

[Holmes]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

She's at 60-70% in the polls now. That "point" speaks for itself.

[Ljube]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

That depends. Does the risk only kick in once she declares? Because there's still a small chance she doesn't run.

Oh, the chance she doesn't run is much bigger than you would admit.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

That depends. Does the risk only kick in once she declares? Because there's still a small chance she doesn't run.

Oh, the chance she doesn't run is much bigger than you would admit.

Based on what?

[Ljube]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

That depends. Does the risk only kick in once she declares? Because there's still a small chance she doesn't run.

Oh, the chance she doesn't run is much bigger than you would admit.

Based on what?

Too many speeches. Earning 200-300 thousand per speech.
Why would she trade that easy money for an uncertain presidential run?

And she's rusty. She has a lot of mileage. She is old and tired. She is gaffe prone and not disciplined.
I mean, she can run, but she would most likely implode along the way. She knows this and that's why I think she'll just decline to run.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's still too early to know what will happen.

Yes, Hillary led by around 20 points at this time in 2006. Now she leads by 40-50 points.

Your point?

My point is that it's nothing like 2008.

No election is the same.  But would you bet your house on Hilary winning the nomination?  I bet you wouldn't.

As for you KCDem, having seen your predictions, I would say that describes you pretty accurately.

That depends. Does the risk only kick in once she declares? Because there's still a small chance she doesn't run.

Oh, the chance she doesn't run is much bigger than you would admit.

Based on what?

Too many speeches. Earning 200-300 thousand per speech.
Why would she trade that easy money for an uncertain presidential run?

And she's rusty. She has a lot of mileage. She is old and tired. She is gaffe prone and not disciplined.
I mean, she can run, but she would most likely implode along the way. She knows this and that's why I think she'll just decline to run.

I really hope so. It will be much easier to get someone vaguely reasonable in without Hillary. Sure, Cuomo or Warner or whoever might have to be taken down, but they won't have the high polling because of name recognition nor the gender card.

[Beet]

I really hope so. It will be much easier to get someone vaguely reasonable in without Hillary. Sure, Cuomo or Warner or whoever might have to be taken down, but they won't have the high polling because of name recognition nor the gender card.

Someone on the left won't win in the GE. Even if Hill Dog doesn't run, someone like Warren or Sanders has no shot.