Rasmussen: Hillary below 60% nationally

[Tender Branson]

59% Hillary Clinton
12% Elizabeth Warren
  6% Joe Biden
  4% Bernie Sanders
  3% Jim Webb
  2% Martin O'Malley
  5% Others
  9% Undecided

Link

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The fake Cherokee will never be President. Hollywood/dailykos can't pick the candidate again, unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats.

[IceSpear]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

[JRP1994]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

Senator Obama (D-IL) says hi.

[IceSpear]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

Senator Obama (D-IL) says hi.

Is this a joke post? Obama was clearly making moves to run in the later portion of 2006, and by this point in 2007 it was a foregone conclusion he was running. He announced on February 10th, 2007. It's one thing to rule it out 2-3 years in advance, it's quite another thing to rule it out less than a year from the Iowa caucus. Everyone takes Ryan and Portman at their word that they're not running. The only reason the media doesn't do so with Warren is because of their pitiful attempts to manufacture a competitive Democratic primary.

[Gass3268]

The fake Cherokee will never be President. Hollywood/dailykos can't pick the candidate again, unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats.

Wait... what?

[stegosaurus]

6% for a sitting VP of a popular (with Democrats at least) administration? That has to be some kind of record

[King]

6% for a sitting VP of a popular (with Democrats at least) administration? That has to be some kind of record

The VP being next in line is a recent phenomena.

Only four Vice Presidents have been elected President outright: Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, and then skip 150 years to H.W. Bush.  In that gap, only Breckenridge in 1860 and Nixon in 1960 even bothered to run.

[Mr. Morden]

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

She needs to do what Christie did in 2011 to kill off speculation: Stop saying "I'm not running", and instead switch to "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll deliberate with my family for the next two weeks, and then give you my decision."  Then at the end of those two weeks, announce that, after careful consideration, you've decided not to run.  That's what seems to work: To say that you're thinking about it, and then announce that your answer is no.  If you just say you're not running and never deviate from that, then the media doesn't know when to start believing you.

[Angel of Death]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

I guess a sense of irony is something that is in short supply among you HillaryIs44^H5'ers.

[Bull Moose Base]

6% for a sitting VP of a popular (with Democrats at least) administration? That has to be some kind of record

The VP being next in line is a recent phenomena.

Only four Vice Presidents have been elected President outright: Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, and then skip 150 years to H.W. Bush.  In that gap, only Breckenridge in 1860 and Nixon in 1960 even bothered to run.

But the VP becoming a presidential nominee was definitely the norm in the 2nd half of the 20th Century. From 1952-2000, of the 8 elected VPs, 6 later became their party's presidential nominee, 5 of 7 if you exclude LBJ who succeeded to the presidency first. And those 2 included Agnew who was charged with multiple crimes. But now, assuming Biden isn't the nominee, it'll be 3 out of the last 4 who didn't run or dropped out before Iowa.

The fake Cherokee will never be President. Hollywood/dailykos can't pick the candidate again, unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats.

Excited to see Hillary refuse to do any Hollywood fundraisers and yes, thank goodness the Democrats will know better this time than to avoid the electoral disaster that happened when they nominated Obama.

[IceSpear]

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

She needs to do what Christie did in 2011 to kill off speculation: Stop saying "I'm not running", and instead switch to "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll deliberate with my family for the next two weeks, and then give you my decision."  Then at the end of those two weeks, announce that, after careful consideration, you've decided not to run.  That's what seems to work: To say that you're thinking about it, and then announce that your answer is no.  If you just say you're not running and never deviate from that, then the media doesn't know when to start believing you.

It's a fairly safe assumption that someone who completely declines this late truly means it. There's lots of examples of people saying they won't run and then jumping in, but they're almost always from people who declined over a year in advance.

[Maxwell]

The fake Cherokee will never be President. Hollywood/dailykos can't pick the candidate again, unless the Democrats want to lose even more seats.

Are you seriously implying that President Hillary Clinton would GAIN seats, especially with the 2018 midterms looking like a potential disaster for Democrats?

[IceSpear]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

I guess a sense of irony is something that is in short supply among you HillaryIs44^H5'ers.

It's not irony though. People really do try to find ridiculous "silver linings" in these dime a dozen Hillary blowout polls. "Omg, she only leads by 45 points instead of the 50 from last time. IT'S HAPPENING!!11!!!"

[Mr. Morden]

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

She needs to do what Christie did in 2011 to kill off speculation: Stop saying "I'm not running", and instead switch to "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll deliberate with my family for the next two weeks, and then give you my decision."  Then at the end of those two weeks, announce that, after careful consideration, you've decided not to run.  That's what seems to work: To say that you're thinking about it, and then announce that your answer is no.  If you just say you're not running and never deviate from that, then the media doesn't know when to start believing you.

It's a fairly safe assumption that someone who completely declines this late truly means it. There's lots of examples of people saying they won't run and then jumping in, but they're almost always from people who declined over a year in advance.

I know it's safe to assume that, and I know she's not running.  I'm just explaining how the media reacts to these things, not how I react to them.  If someone consistently says they're not running, then the media doesn't know when to start believing them.  That's dumb, but that's how it works.  Like I said, Christie 2012 is the perfect example.  The media kept asking him and he kept saying no.  Then he said "Maybe.  I'll think about it and get back to you next week." (paraphrase)  Then a week later "OK, I thought about it, and the answer is still no." (paraphrase)  That's when they stopped asking about it, and that's when his Intrade odds finally dropped to about zero.

[To be fair though, there are a *few* cases of people continuing to deny interest in a run this late and then changing their mind.  I'm pretty sure Perry was still in the "I'm not running" stage as of January 2011.]

[Bull Moose Base]

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

She needs to do what Christie did in 2011 to kill off speculation: Stop saying "I'm not running", and instead switch to "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll deliberate with my family for the next two weeks, and then give you my decision."  Then at the end of those two weeks, announce that, after careful consideration, you've decided not to run.  That's what seems to work: To say that you're thinking about it, and then announce that your answer is no.  If you just say you're not running and never deviate from that, then the media doesn't know when to start believing you.

It's a fairly safe assumption that someone who completely declines this late truly means it. There's lots of examples of people saying they won't run and then jumping in, but they're almost always from people who declined over a year in advance.

I know it's safe to assume that, and I know she's not running.  I'm just explaining how the media reacts to these things, not how I react to them.  If someone consistently says they're not running, then the media doesn't know when to start believing them.  That's dumb, but that's how it works.  Like I said, Christie 2012 is the perfect example.  The media kept asking him and he kept saying no.  Then he said "Maybe.  I'll think about it and get back to you next week." (paraphrase)  Then a week later "OK, I thought about it, and the answer is still no." (paraphrase)  That's when they stopped asking about it, and that's when his Intrade odds finally dropped to about zero.

[To be fair though, there are a *few* cases of people continuing to deny interest in a run this late and then changing their mind.  I'm pretty sure Perry was still in the "I'm not running" stage as of January 2011.]

That's true but Christie changing his mind seemed totally genuine- probably motivated by Romney's weakness and Obama's approval ratings tanking in the summer of 2011. So for all his griping that the media couldn't get it through their thick heads that he wasn't running, they kind of seemed justified in hindsight.

[ElectionsGuy]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

I think its meant as a joke, especially for a person like you who plays Hillary victimization all the time.

[Senator Cris]

So Hillary has increased her lead from 45 points in Ras's November poll to 47 points now, yet the headline is "#Hillaryunder60". Never change Atlas.

And why do they keep including Warren in these polls when she said she's not running? Are they going to keep including Paul Ryan in the Republican polls too?

I think its meant as a joke, especially for a person like you who plays Hillary victimization all the time.

[BlueSwan]

They obviously need to keep Warren in the polls, because she is the only non-Clinton candidate that has gained even remote traction.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

They obviously need to keep Warren in the polls, because she is the only non-Clinton candidate that has gained even remote traction.

It would be nice to see a poll without Warren in it. I think that some of the couple-percenters might gain some support, but I'm sure that Hillary would too.

[BlueSwan]

They obviously need to keep Warren in the polls, because she is the only non-Clinton candidate that has gained even remote traction.

It would be nice to see a poll without Warren in it. I think that some of the couple-percenters might gain some support, but I'm sure that Hillary would too.

I actually think that Hillary would gain the bulk of those votes. I don't think the Warren supporters are anti-Clinton. It's not like the GOP 2012 primary where a lot of voters were anti-Romney who kept looking for whoever might be able to beat Romney.