Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 15, 2019, 01:04:47 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  Alaska (PPP): Hillary Clinton trails all Republicans, except Sarah Palin
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Alaska (PPP): Hillary Clinton trails all Republicans, except Sarah Palin  (Read 893 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,319
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 02, 2013, 02:21:19 pm »

PPP's newest Alaska poll finds that Hillary Clinton would have a chance at winning the state in 2016...but only if Sarah Palin was the Republican candidate for President. Clinton would lead Palin 49/40 in a hypothetical match up. Only 18% of Alaskans think Palin should run in 2016 to 77% who think she shouldn't, and even among Republican voters 72% think she should sit out the race.

Clinton trails the other Republicans we tested, although she would make the state closer than it's been in a while. Chris Christie leads her by 8 points at 46/38, Jeb Bush leads her by 7 at 49/42, Rand Paul is up 6 at 49/43, Marco Rubio has a 3 point advantage at 45/42, and Paul Ryan leads by a single point at 47/46.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/alaska-miscellany.html
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2013, 07:42:38 pm »

This is pretty funny.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,436
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2013, 07:43:52 pm »

Bush 49%
Clinton 42%

Christie 46%
Clinton 38%

Clinton 49%
Palin 40%

Paul 49%
Clinton 43%

Rubio 45%
Clinton 42%

Ryan 47%
Clinton 46%

Christie/Clinton age breakdown:
18-29: Christie +3
30-45: Christie +31
46-65: Clinton +4
65+: Christie +17

Paul/Clinton age breakdown:
18-29: Paul +22
30-45: Paul +27
46-65: Clinton +5
65+: Paul +7
Logged
#StillWithBeto
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,423
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2013, 11:37:04 pm »

I would venture to guess that Sarah Palin is more of a laughingstock in Alaska than she is anywhere else. Pretty pathetic when a former Governor cannot carry a red state that has not went blue since 1964 over someone as "cold" and "calculating" and "polarizing" and "socialist" as Hillary Clinton. But Lord, I sure do hope she is the nominee.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,438
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2013, 12:23:58 am »

Clinton will lose in a landslide here at the end of the day.

She certainly won't come as close as Obama did in 2012. Just watch.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2013, 08:49:14 pm »

Does anyone expect Alaska to gain electoral votes in the next decade or two? Population growth would have to be substantial in a state Alaska in order for it to become more appealing for either party to compete there.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2013, 04:36:08 pm »

Does anyone expect Alaska to gain electoral votes in the next decade or two? Population growth would have to be substantial in a state Alaska in order for it to become more appealing for either party to compete there.

Two words:

Global warming.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2013, 01:34:02 am »

Does anyone expect Alaska to gain electoral votes in the next decade or two? Population growth would have to be substantial in a state Alaska in order for it to become more appealing for either party to compete there.

Two words:

Global warming.

What does that have to do with the state's significance in a Presidential election? Their population would have to double for either party to care about it and even at that it would still be light red.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC