Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 13, 2019, 07:34:25 pm
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  FL-Quinnipiac: Hillary leads all Republicans
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: FL-Quinnipiac: Hillary leads all Republicans  (Read 1507 times)
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,340
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 01, 2014, 05:38:20 am »

Report.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,648
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2014, 05:40:52 am »

Dominating !




Tongue
Logged
Knives
solopop
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,464
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2014, 06:21:40 am »

Shocked

Considering her favourables have collapsed recently, this is excellent.
Logged
JRP1994
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,646


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2014, 06:58:26 am »

.... If these numbers hold up, it will really highlight

1) How terrible a fit Obama was for Florida
2) How much the state has changed since Kerry lost by 5%
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,172
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2014, 08:09:57 am »

fav / unfav %

Clinton 58 / 37% for +21%
Bush 53 / 35% for +18%
Rubio 43 / 36% for +7%
Huckabee 36 / 32% for +4%
Paul 34 / 31% for +3%
Christie 37 / 35% for +2%
Cruz 19 / 30% for -11%

Rubio job approval:
approve 47%
disapprove 39%
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2014, 10:06:12 am »
« Edited: May 01, 2014, 04:59:42 pm by pbrower2a »

Devastating!

The 49-41 lead over Jeb Bush indicates that even the Favorite Son effect cannot bring Florida into play. Florida has typically been R+3 or so for some time, approaching the national average only in 2000.

The Hispanic vote is growing and becoming more D. The Cuban-American vote has gone from being solid R  to being a genuine swing vote. Republicans no longer can shout "We hate Fidel Castro and Democrats are soft on Communism" and reliably get the Cuban-American vote in Florida. Fidel Castro is still widely hated, but that is not the only issue that Cuban-Americans care about. Could it be streets and schools?

Republicans have been bungling Florida for some time. Quinnipiac is not a D-leaning pollster, as shown in a recent poll in Colorado. Gay rights are usually a D concern, and the 59% support for SSM may be an exaggeration of an R disadvantage. 30 months can be an eternity in Presidential politics, but at this point Florida is for Hillary Clinton to lose. Republicans are at the point that they need a disgraced President to have a chance to win the Presidency in 2016.



 
Logged
Landslide Andy
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,731
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2014, 11:08:47 am »

I know this is usually used sarcastically, but...

Dominating. Seriously. The GOP cannot win without Florida, so does this force their hand into nominating Bush?
Logged
marty
boshembechle
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,413


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2014, 12:08:07 pm »

How is it that Paul leads by 5 in CO, but loses by 15 in Florida? I know the states are very different, but they are both swing states. One of the polls is probably off. Florida is still the dems to lose as long as they are as successful as they were in 2012 at herding democratic cattle to the polls.
Logged

excelsus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 692
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2014, 05:11:09 pm »

Even I am astonished... Shocked Shocked Shocked
Logged
Devils30
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,904
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.06, S: -4.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2014, 05:24:33 pm »

The GOP needs a true conservative like Cruz! Even if he loses by half of those 26 points it's still humiliation on a national stage.
Logged
Biden If Buttigieg
ShadowOfTheWave
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2014, 05:26:01 pm »

The GOP needs a true conservative like Cruz! Even if he loses by half of those 26 points it's still humiliation on a national stage.

If Cruz is the nominee and loses, it will be fascinating to see what replaces the "our candidate wasn't conservative enough!" narrative.
Logged
Landslide Andy
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,731
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2014, 05:38:58 pm »

The GOP needs a true conservative like Cruz! Even if he loses by half of those 26 points it's still humiliation on a national stage.

If Cruz is the nominee and loses, it will be fascinating to see what replaces the "our candidate wasn't conservative enough!" narrative.

Nothing will replace it, they'll say the same thing about Cruz. Remember, back in November they were saying Ken Cuccinelli lost because he wasn't conservative enough.

Also, if these type of numbers hold up later into the year/early 2015, the Democratic establishment is not going to let Hillary NOT run.
Logged
JRP1994
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,646


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2014, 08:23:38 pm »

The GOP needs a true conservative like Cruz! Even if he loses by half of those 26 points it's still humiliation on a national stage.

If Cruz is the nominee and loses, it will be fascinating to see what replaces the "our candidate wasn't conservative enough!" narrative.

Voter Fraud will be the narrative. Because that makes sense.
Logged
Meursault
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2014, 05:50:20 am »

I'm almost as terrified at the prospect of a failing Cruz candidacy as I am of a President Cruz. It would be just the excuse a portion of the GOP base needs to drift off into overt white nationalism: "Well, we ran the Spic and he lost; clearly we need a whites-only Party for a whites-only nation."
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,532
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2014, 04:40:33 pm »

The GOP needs a true conservative like Cruz! Even if he loses by half of those 26 points it's still humiliation on a national stage.

If Cruz is the nominee and loses, it will be fascinating to see what replaces the "our candidate wasn't conservative enough!" narrative.

It'll be THE RNC FOUGHT US ALL THE WAY.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2014, 08:33:21 pm »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,532
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2014, 08:37:20 pm »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.

Do you honestly think that Hillary isn't beholden to Wall Street? That's pretty pathetic delusion.
Logged
Lief 🐋
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,591
Dominica


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2014, 08:53:00 pm »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.

this post is bad and you should feel bad for writing it.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2014, 09:02:13 pm »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.

Do you honestly think that Hillary isn't beholden to Wall Street? That's pretty pathetic delusion.

Ummm, no. But Obama is certainly no less beholden. His base in the primaries cloaked their "merit"ocratic elitism in "cultural" "open-mindedness," so they certainly wouldn't raise hell over unprecedented upward wealth transfers via QE/ZIRP/etc.

People would've been on guard for such upward redistribution with people like Hillary, and the base she crafted during the nomination coronation wouldn't have stood for it. Obie's base enjoys these upward wealth redistributions, just like they approve of the peace drones and humanitarian spying, but they have to justify "progress" as dudes marrying each other and smoking commercialized pot. Sure, they're talking about inequality, but what did they do about it when they had super-majorities in both chambers?  And forcing people to buy junk private insurance isn't what i'd call progress, though my metrics of per capita spending and life expectancy relative to other countries may be a little "bitter" or "clingy." Of course, Obie and a super-majority Dembot congress couldn't pass single payer because only like 2 out of 3 Americans support it or because it would save $300bn per year. ... or according to Dembot email spam, because Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or the Koch brothers...
Logged
Landslide Andy
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,731
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2014, 11:20:12 pm »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.

Do you honestly think that Hillary isn't beholden to Wall Street? That's pretty pathetic delusion.

Ummm, no. But Obama is certainly no less beholden. His base in the primaries cloaked their "merit"ocratic elitism in "cultural" "open-mindedness," so they certainly wouldn't raise hell over unprecedented upward wealth transfers via QE/ZIRP/etc.

People would've been on guard for such upward redistribution with people like Hillary, and the base she crafted during the nomination coronation wouldn't have stood for it. Obie's base enjoys these upward wealth redistributions, just like they approve of the peace drones and humanitarian spying, but they have to justify "progress" as dudes marrying each other and smoking commercialized pot. Sure, they're talking about inequality, but what did they do about it when they had super-majorities in both chambers?  And forcing people to buy junk private insurance isn't what i'd call progress, though my metrics of per capita spending and life expectancy relative to other countries may be a little "bitter" or "clingy." Of course, Obie and a super-majority Dembot congress couldn't pass single payer because only like 2 out of 3 Americans support it or because it would save $300bn per year. ... or according to Dembot email spam, because Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or the Koch brothers...

You realize that Obamacare has literally saved lives, right? How ironic you bash some Democrats for being "elitists" and "not caring about the little people" while completely disregarding the lives of the people that Obamacare saved in an attempt to score political points.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2014, 12:28:58 am »

These numbers really shouldn't be all that surprising.  Just more data to support the idea Obie was a great fit for Wall Street, Hipster enclaves in Brooklyn, and San Francisco, etc. and the "ascendant coalition" of "moderates" (pro-SSM pothead bankster-lovers) in places like Colorado.  All Hillary had were "bitter clingers" who may have been "closed-minded" on "cultural" "issues" but maybe didn't want banksters getting continued trillions in bailout money.

Do you honestly think that Hillary isn't beholden to Wall Street? That's pretty pathetic delusion.

Ummm, no. But Obama is certainly no less beholden. His base in the primaries cloaked their "merit"ocratic elitism in "cultural" "open-mindedness," so they certainly wouldn't raise hell over unprecedented upward wealth transfers via QE/ZIRP/etc.

People would've been on guard for such upward redistribution with people like Hillary, and the base she crafted during the nomination coronation wouldn't have stood for it. Obie's base enjoys these upward wealth redistributions, just like they approve of the peace drones and humanitarian spying, but they have to justify "progress" as dudes marrying each other and smoking commercialized pot. Sure, they're talking about inequality, but what did they do about it when they had super-majorities in both chambers?  And forcing people to buy junk private insurance isn't what i'd call progress, though my metrics of per capita spending and life expectancy relative to other countries may be a little "bitter" or "clingy." Of course, Obie and a super-majority Dembot congress couldn't pass single payer because only like 2 out of 3 Americans support it or because it would save $300bn per year. ... or according to Dembot email spam, because Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, or the Koch brothers...

You realize that Obamacare has literally saved lives, right? How ironic you bash some Democrats for being "elitists" and "not caring about the little people" while completely disregarding the lives of the people that Obamacare saved in an attempt to score political points.

No, what is elitist is extorting a few "saved lives" for the certainty of 40k+ deaths a year because the private insurance system continues to exist when a completely popular and plausible and elegantly simple alternative (Medicare for All) exists. It smacks of the sort of "merit"ocratic "progressivism" that allows us to assimilate/"educate" a few lucky occupied subjects while decimating an entire country. Democrats consciously chose to censor single payer and run with a "public option" sparkle pony they knew would never see the light in any meaningful way.  In football, that's called running interference, and we've "progressives" especially to thank for that.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2014, 09:34:44 pm »

The economic meltdowns of 1929-1933 and 2007-2009 look very similar for a year and a half. The length is the most obvious difference, and for that there is a cause: in 1931 Herbert Hoover failed to back the banks against the bank runs that brought more erosion of the economy seemingly every day. In 2009 the institutions backed the banks.

The 1931 failure ravaged banking, taking one tier after another of banks weaken and fail. That said, such banks that remained at the beginning of 1933 were so strong that FDR could back them cheaply. In 2009 the American political system did nothing to weed out the pervasive corruption in the financial industry but did buy time for doing so. 
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