WaPo / ABC nat. poll: Clinton leads Bush/Christie/Huck/Paul/Romney by 13-17 pts. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 10:19:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  WaPo / ABC nat. poll: Clinton leads Bush/Christie/Huck/Paul/Romney by 13-17 pts. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: WaPo / ABC nat. poll: Clinton leads Bush/Christie/Huck/Paul/Romney by 13-17 pts.  (Read 3508 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« on: January 18, 2015, 10:09:45 PM »

Washington Post / ABC national poll:

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1166a1HuckabeeClinton.pdf

Clinton 56%
Huckabee 39%

It looks like they may have tested other candidates as well, who'll be included in a full release (perhaps tomorrow), but wanted to release the Huckabee matchup this morning because of Huckabee being a guest today on ABC's "This Week".


Devastating. Probably splits the vote 57-43... Reagan got almost 59% of the vote in 1984.

Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2015, 10:41:26 PM »

My guess on what a 57-43 election looks like with Clinton against Huckabee



Out on a limb? Sure. The strongest percentage for a Democratic nominee since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, so a 57-43 split of the popular vote for a Democrat is uncharted territory. Huckabee has a regional strength, but huge regional weaknesses.     
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2015, 12:53:57 AM »
« Edited: January 19, 2015, 10:50:15 AM by pbrower2a »

My guess on what a 57-43 election looks like with Clinton against Huckabee



Out on a limb? Sure. The strongest percentage for a Democratic nominee since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, so a 57-43 split of the popular vote for a Democrat is uncharted territory. Huckabee has a regional strength, but huge regional weaknesses.    

Yeah... this won't happen.

Huckabee has too many weaknesses for Republicans outside his core area of support to win the Republican nomination.

Some early polls suggest elections that will never happen -- like Obama vs. Palin in 2008.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2015, 07:28:28 AM »

My guess on what a 57-43 election looks like with Clinton against Huckabee



Out on a limb? Sure. The strongest percentage for a Democratic nominee since 1964 was Barack Obama in 2008, so a 57-43 split of the popular vote for a Democrat is uncharted territory. Huckabee has a regional strength, but huge regional weaknesses.    

Yeah... this won't happen.

Huckabee has too many weaknesses for Republicans outside his core area of support to win the Republican nomination.

Some early polls suggest elections that will never happen -- like Obama vs. Palin in 2008.

I know this won't happen, but in any scenario, why would Huckabee lose Kansas, Nebraska, or the Dakotas...?

He is that poor a cultural match for the Plains states other than Oklahoma and Texas.

Sometimes, early polls show the results of an election that never happens... think of how bad things looked for an Obama-Palin matchup in early 2009. I don't know if I can get to the polling patterns from then, but I noticed that she could not relate to people who are not native speakers of English. To talk to such people, even if they are highly proficient in English, one is  wise to cleave closely to the formal register as do the phrasebooks and the formal teaching of English to non-native speakers.  I learned that quickly at a highly-regarded university in California. Sarah Palin did not.

Huckabee does well to the extent that Southern Baptists are a part of the electorate.     
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2015, 11:40:52 AM »

I guess many pollsters assume minority turnout will be as high as in 2012 and Hillary will only narrowly lose white voters. Seriously? Those polls are ridiculous!

The formidable campaign apparatus of President Obama has gone completely over to Hillary Clinton. Count on it to know exactly how to reach the minority voters that he reached in 2008 and 2012.

Millions rejected Barack Obama because of you-know-what. It wasn't intellectual merit or inadequate promises.   
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.