Talk Elections

Clinton: 46%
Bush: 42%

Clinton: 48%
Walker: 37%

Clinton: 49%
Carson: 36%

Clinton: 48%
Paul: 38%

Clinton: 49%
Huckabee: 40%

Clinton: 46%
Rubio: 40%

Clinton: 51%
Trump: 34% (LMAO)

https://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/7_14_2015_marginals.pdf

What does a 17-point gap look like on a map?

...the last time:

()

Reagan 525, 58.77%
Mondale 13,  40.56%

No, it wouldn't be that bad.

Not buying the Hillary/Walker or Hillary/Paul numbers. The rest looks accurate.

Strong numbers for Bush and Rubio, decent for Huckabee and Paul. Absolutely horrible for everyone else (Republicans that is).

As scary as it is that 46% of people in this poll would support Clinton over Bush, it's more scary that 34% would support Donald Trump, and 17% of my fellow Republicans!

Hmmm, I don't think Paul is that low, then again, his candidacy lost its fire. Trump, meanwhile, lol.

We see some combinations that just aren't going to happen.

PPP will soon show results of Virginia, a state now close to the national average in its voting. If one sees some of the bigger gaps in Virginia... as on this national poll, then we are going to be able to discount some potential nominees.

Rand Paul has nothing to offer the would-be war profiteers. Unlike most other Republicans, he isn't much of a militarist.

Hmm.. nice numbers for Bush that he's closing out the gap this early on.

As far as Walker & Pauls numbers? Doesn't sound too right to me. If old-man-jenkins (McCain) & Palin (LOL) are behind at a 6-7% loss on an extremely fresh & new historical candidate at the end of a very unpopular term for the previous president, Rand Paul & Walker wouldn't be falling behind 11%+, not even close.

I totally buy them. Even Walker's two sons loath their father now after he went mad on marriage equality. According to his wife, it took him two-three days until he managed to return some kind of peace to the family. If he can't even get along with his own children, how could Walker be able to connect with everyday voters? Maybe he could do decently with voters over 60, but he would be absolutely crushed with all age groups younger than 50. And he dares to call himself the candidate of the future lol. At least Rubio, the other candidate who's called himself the same, has some appeal to younger age groups.

Bush and Rubio are clearly the GOP's best choices as far as electability goes.

Huckabee and Paul do have some moderate to liberal views on some issues, but their extremism in other areas sinks them.

Walker is a horrible candidate.

Trump is a joke.

Nice to see Clinton still leads Jeb.

Still mindblowing to me to see people believe that woman has more of a track record, accomplishment, and eligibility for commander in chief of the greatest nation in the world than Jeb Bush. Laughable, almost.

Like Jeb is any better.

Hillary has been to almost every country in the world and talked to world leaders from more than half of the globe's nations. More than Jeb can claim I think.

Out of all the criticisms one could lob at Clinton you chose lack of experience?  8 years as an active first lady, 8 years in the Senate, and 4 years as Secretary of State would make her perhaps the most prepared candidate running.  This is almost indisputably true on foreign policy.

Pretty much any attack against Clinton would be better than the angle you're trying to pull off.

It would be over 22 million votes and, with that, a landslide of 80 or more percent of the states getting carried.

Sure does sound nice all on paper, yes? Wow, she's ready to be commander in chief. Eh, not so fast. When you look a bit further Hillary still is lacking the eligibility and the only reason she IS electable is because she's the Kim Kardashian of politics, a damn celebrity, not a commander in chief.

8 years as FL - What!? haha. Sure, a lot of time around the environment, but this "record" really doesn't accompany nearly any requirements of office. It offers no fiscal experience, legislative experience, and rarely any political experience. Social experience? Uh, sure.. but. That can be achieved in many other areas. So uh, nothing here for Hillary.

8 years NY senator - Her senate office time was piss-poor, barely having her name pass through any significant legislation at all. She was extremely ineffective, with nearly none of her sponsored legislation heading into law. Of 337 bills that Hillary has introduced, only 2 have become law. It's not the easiest to pass a bill but Hillary spins out empty legislation like it was her job. She accomplished very very little, and never stood up and LEAD the battle for the senate on key issues. GovTrack.us has Hillary Clinton ranked 24th out of her 39 democrats in the department at the time in getting her bills to the committee, essentially being poor at getting much done in her time there. Most of her legislature was press-picture legislation, or "look-nice" legislation. Such as dozens of her pieces being nothing but congratulating certain organizations or people, "permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to honor Constantino Brumidi on the 200th anniversary of his birth. (!?!?!)", I could go on. Hillary has nothing to stand on during her 8 years, a very VERY average senator at absolute best.

4 Years as SS - I.. I don't even need to go here. Dishonesty, controversy and scandal that has been revealed, and poor handling of situations across the board. She's everything but a shining star of a Secretary of State.

Hillary is the Kim Kardashian of her party and that's the only thing making her electable, and even Dems know that deep down. She has no actual shining track record and she's not ready to lead the greatest country in the world. I will stand by that until the day I die.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton) is your friend.  


Is that surprising?  For 6 of her 8 years as Senator, Republicans held majorities in both Houses of Congress, and for the remaining 2 years, they still held the presidency.


Number of bills that made it to committee is only one measure of how successful a Senator is.  Looking at the very same website you used, Clinton's leadership score (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022) (using bill sponsorship patterns) is towards the high end of the Democratic caucus.

The fact is, if you pick and chose statistics, you can tell whatever narrative you like.  

If you aren't even going to try to justify your position here, I really actually have to respond.  

However, I know your probably going to mention Benghazi, despite the fact that the Republican House has launched multiple investigations that all turned up no evidence of wrongdoing, and despite the fact that Americans were killed in multiple terrorist attacks on embassies during the Bush administration with no witch hunt started.  

The Republican obsession over Benghazi shows just how little they actually have on her.  If you must go with an anti-Clinton 'scandal', I recommend email-gate.  Of course, email-gate isn't an attack on Clinton's experience, it's an accusation of corruption.  Which happens to be a line of attack that would get you much further than... whatever it is you're trying to do here.

I suggest mental hospital EliteLX. You seem possessed.

So what you're trying to say is that you hate her because she's a woman. Gotcha.

People the criticize Hillary as SS don't understand how much she has healed the image of Ame Rica around the world, something Bush had destroyed.

What? That's the best thing you have? I'm possessed for making a perfectly viable point? Hillary Clinton, in comparison to some of the track records and achievements of some Dems and Pubs in '16, is a joke. She has no notable achievments or battles at ALL from her Senate term, Secretary State has her being caught for a lot of lies with foreign nations, taking money from them for their organization, controversial Benghazi and email gate. First Lady really isn't that much special. If THAT'S what you trust to determine someones  executive experience you shouldn't vote.

You don't just throw out a poor insult and have absolutely no basis when I made a perfectly reasonable point, doesn't quite work like that.

What? That's the best thing you have? I'm possessed for making a perfectly viable point? Hillary Clinton, in comparison to some of the track records and achievements of some Dems and Pubs in '16, is a joke. She has no notable achievments or battles at ALL from her Senate term, Secretary State has her being caught for a lot of lies with foreign nations, taking money from them for their organization, controversial Benghazi and email gate. First Lady really isn't that much special. If THAT'S what you trust to determine someones  executive experience you shouldn't vote.

You don't just throw out a poor insult and have absolutely no basis when I made a perfectly reasonable point, doesn't quite work like that.

Hillary Clinton is a viable candidate on her own merits - and this is coming from a Sanders supporter.

*As First Lady, she engineered her husband's healthcare package (there's a reason why it's called Hillarycare and not Clintoncare), and championed many bills fixing problems in the foster care/adoption system, and founded SCHIP. She also used her platform to fight for women's rights (which she's done for a while).

*Mehmentum generally covered why her Senate career was accomplished,  so I'll re-direct you to his point.

*I'd consider repairing our image abroad an accomplishment (especially when you're trumpeting Benghazi of all things as a reason why not to vote for her). Also,  the Clinton Foundation scandal happened after her term as Secretary of State, and I'm gonna need a bit of examples for the lies.

Basically, there are a few valid points in there, but they just need a bit of proof behind them.

^ Pointless and useless information! ^

If you think that has any bearing … you must have been born no more than five years ago.

Fair enough, even though Obama did most of that work and not Hillary. Hillary as SoS certainly didn't hurt though. ;)

Hillary Clinton will have an inimitable knowledge of how the political process works.  There has not been since Eleanore Roosevelt a First Lady so actively involved in the Presidency (contrast the passive housewife who orders the staff about and directs interior decorating) ... and unlike Eleanore Roosevelt she has elected office and Cabinet service. Her skill set may not be ideal for the Presidency, but nobody is likely to ever get that. (I don't see Michelle Obama running for statewide office in Illinois soon, so I can reasonably rule her out).

One may dislike her agenda -- well, at least 45% of the population will dislike the agenda of any President!

She can be linked to a Presidency that will have to prove above-average if she is to become President. Ask how that goes in November 2016. "Keep up the good work" or "Let's go further" are the only ways to use an incumbency to advantage.

So -- how good a President will be Barack Obama be seen by 50% of the people?