Monmouth National Poll: Hillary Clinton leads GOP candidates by 4-16 points

[PolitiJunkie]

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

[PolitiJunkie]

Joe Biden
Vice President 9%

9% of Americans are awfully insightful!

[PolitiJunkie]

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

[PolitiJunkie]

43-39 over Christie is 51-49 for Christie. In Presidential Elections, two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent president or the incumbent president's party unless the incumbent president's approval rating is above 50% and the incumbent president happens to be running for re-election. Other than him, her numbers look good. HOWEVER, her numbers looked good in 2007 and early 2008 too. So

A few days before the 2012 election, Dick Morris said that polls showing Obama with a 4-point lead actually mean a 5-point Romney lead because two-thirds of the undecided vote goes against the incumbent's party PLUS Democrats are over-sampled in the specific poll by 4 points PLUS the Bradley effect shaves off one or two points for Obama. He used this same algorithm in specific swing states to arrive at a 325-213 Romney victory, in which he won every swing state minus Nevada, and won the non-swing states of Michigan and Minnesota.

Luckily, he was right, and we are now enjoying the first year of the Romney administration, and because, by the same accurate logic of Morris, 43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie, in four years we will be enjoying the first year of the Christie administration! Making correct analyses based on previous correct analyses is fun!

Barfbag please address this comment I made earlier.

About a poll 3 years in advance? I think we both know better than to assume the election is decided by a poll 3 years in advance. As for Dick Morris, he would've been correct prior to the 2012 election. There are more Democrats now due to a rise in the Hispanic/Latino community. It's been very surprising. Dick Morris was using the 2004 demographics which haven't really come to be since with the exception of the 2010 midterm elections. Had the demographics last year been the same as 2004, then Morris would've been correct. Please tell me you're not making a prediction for 2016 based on a poll in 2013?

I'm not making a prediction for 2016 based on a 2013 poll. That's exactly what you are doing..."43-39 for Clinton actually means 51-49 for Christie." I just explained why that was a very inaccurate analysis.