Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2019, 05:16:46 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  Quinnipiac national poll: D: Clinton 56% Warren 14%; R: Walker 18% Bush 16%
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Quinnipiac national poll: D: Clinton 56% Warren 14%; R: Walker 18% Bush 16%  (Read 975 times)
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 05, 2015, 06:06:47 am »

Quinnipiac national poll:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2172

Dems

Clinton 56%
Warren 14%
Biden 10%
Sanders 4%
Webb 1%
O'Malley 0%

GOP

Walker 18%
Bush 16%
Christie 8%
Huckabee 8%
Carson 7%
Cruz 6%
Paul 6%
Rubio 5%
Jindal 2%
Santorum 2%
Graham 1%
Kasich 1%
Perry 1%
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2015, 06:16:51 am »

Dems, if Clinton doesn't run:

Biden 35%
Warren 25%
Sanders 7%
Webb 3%
O'Malley 1%

On the GOP side, who leads among….?

Tea Party: Walker
white born again Evangelicals: Walker
very conservative: Walker
somewhat conservative: Bush
moderate: Bush
men: Walker
women: Bush

Are there any candidates you would definitely *NOT* support?

Dems

Biden 10%
O'Malley 8%
Webb 7%
Clinton 5%
Sanders 5%
Warren 4%

GOP

Bush 16%
Christie 16%
Paul 9%
Cruz 6%
Graham 6%
Huckabee 6%
Perry 6%
Santorum 4%
Jindal 3%
Rubio 3%
Carson 2%
Kasich 2%
Walker 2%
Logged
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,972
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2015, 02:02:13 pm »

On the GOP side, who leads among….?

Tea Party: Walker
white born again Evangelicals: Walker
very conservative: Walker
somewhat conservative: Bush
moderate: Bush
men: Walker
women: Bush
So Bush is going to be the nominee. That was easy Tongue
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,817
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2015, 03:57:53 pm »

Warren

How long do the media and the pollsters intend to keep up this ridiculous farce?
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,817
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2015, 03:59:41 pm »

O'Malley 0%

LOL!

Numbers like these are why Hillary got Mikulski to retire. Wink

Also, I love how Webb and O'Malley are higher on the "do not support" ranking despite having much lower name recognition than Hillary.

#DemshateHillary
#2008redux
#HillaryvulnerabletoGreens
Logged
Fubart Solman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,767
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2015, 05:00:47 pm »

Warren

How long do the media and the pollsters intend to keep up this ridiculous farce?

November 7th, 2016
Logged
Southern Dep. Speaker Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2015, 05:49:00 pm »

Clinton at only 56%.

#BidenMentum
#WarrenMentum
#2008Redux
Logged
Potus
Potus2036
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,846


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2015, 06:14:05 pm »

On the GOP side, who leads among….?

Tea Party: Walker
white born again Evangelicals: Walker
very conservative: Walker
somewhat conservative: Bush
moderate: Bush
men: Walker
women: Bush
So Bush is going to be the nominee. That was easy Tongue

^This is very true.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2015, 10:27:45 pm »

Running trendline for all national polls of the GOP race:

Img

Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,898
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.87, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 07, 2015, 04:14:48 pm »

Warren

How long do the media and the pollsters intend to keep up this ridiculous farce?

You sound uneasy.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,817
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 07, 2015, 04:37:02 pm »

Warren

How long do the media and the pollsters intend to keep up this ridiculous farce?

You sound uneasy.

Yes, I'm very uneasy that Hillary only leads someone who isn't going to run by 42 points. You caught me! Roll Eyes

No, I'm just annoyed at the blatant double standard. In 99% of polls, only candidates who have shown interest in a run (or at the very least, have not explicitly ruled it out) are included. Elizabeth Warren is the only exception to this. It's just more proof of the media's grudge against Hillary and their desperation in trying to create a competitive primary.

Of course, as someone who also likes accurate polls, it's annoying on that point as well. If they continually include someone who isn't going to run in their polls, it's hard to get a sense of the actual state of the race. I guess it really doesn't matter whether she's leading by 35 or 60 points since she's already the nominee, but it would still be interesting to see. I would figure a forum of election/map/polling geeks would agree with me on that point. It would be like if Strickland said he wasn't going to run, and rather than testing Sittenfeld against Portman, every pollster only tested Strickland every single time.
Logged
Southern Dep. Speaker Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 07, 2015, 08:57:51 pm »

Warren

How long do the media and the pollsters intend to keep up this ridiculous farce?

You sound uneasy.

Yes, I'm very uneasy that Hillary only leads someone who isn't going to run by 42 points. You caught me! Roll Eyes

No, I'm just annoyed at the blatant double standard. In 99% of polls, only candidates who have shown interest in a run (or at the very least, have not explicitly ruled it out) are included. Elizabeth Warren is the only exception to this. It's just more proof of the media's grudge against Hillary and their desperation in trying to create a competitive primary.

Of course, as someone who also likes accurate polls, it's annoying on that point as well. If they continually include someone who isn't going to run in their polls, it's hard to get a sense of the actual state of the race. I guess it really doesn't matter whether she's leading by 35 or 60 points since she's already the nominee, but it would still be interesting to see. I would figure a forum of election/map/polling geeks would agree with me on that point. It would be like if Strickland said he wasn't going to run, and rather than testing Sittenfeld against Portman, every pollster only tested Strickland every single time.

The whole idea of why the media doesn't believe Warren has ruled out running is, 1) The massive grassroots 'Draft Warren' effort isn't giving up anytime soon, 2) Warren was drafted to run for Senate, it wasn't something she was convinced into doing by herself, 3) Clinton needs a strong primary challenger to help prepare her for the general after nearly 7 years of no campaigning, and 4) Warren does not strive to keep a low profile as a senator.

Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2015, 09:08:48 pm »

Like I said before, Warren should do what Christie did in 2011 to get the media to finally believe that he wasn't running: After months of denials of interest, flip-flop and say "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll give you an answer next week."  Then the following week, make the announcement: "OK, I thought about it.  And I'm not running."  That was what got everyone to finally believe that he wasn't running, and caused his share price in the betting markets to crash to [near] zero.
Logged
Southern Dep. Speaker Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 07, 2015, 09:17:00 pm »

Like I said before, Warren should do what Christie did in 2011 to get the media to finally believe that he wasn't running: After months of denials of interest, flip-flop and say "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll give you an answer next week."  Then the following week, make the announcement: "OK, I thought about it.  And I'm not running."  That was what got everyone to finally believe that he wasn't running, and caused his share price in the betting markets to crash to [near] zero.

The thing with Christie though, was that he literally considered it. He didn't just walk into his mansion, play video games (or something), and keep a low profile for a week before saying "NO!", he actually became genuinely undecided after being disappointed with the republican field and only stayed out because he didn't think he could beat Obama. If he had a reason to think he could beat Obama, he would have run in 2012.

Warren, on the other hand, has not indicated any problem she has with a nominee Clinton, has pretty much come as close as you can to making a Sherman statement ("I will resign immediately if elected") without making one, and has said "No" from the very first time she was asked about it (without ever saying something less certain, or even using the traditional "never say never, but probably no", nope, just plain old "No.").
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2015, 10:10:44 pm »

Like I said before, Warren should do what Christie did in 2011 to get the media to finally believe that he wasn't running: After months of denials of interest, flip-flop and say "OK, I'll think about it.  I'll give you an answer next week."  Then the following week, make the announcement: "OK, I thought about it.  And I'm not running."  That was what got everyone to finally believe that he wasn't running, and caused his share price in the betting markets to crash to [near] zero.

The thing with Christie though, was that he literally considered it. He didn't just walk into his mansion, play video games (or something), and keep a low profile for a week before saying "NO!", he actually became genuinely undecided after being disappointed with the republican field and only stayed out because he didn't think he could beat Obama. If he had a reason to think he could beat Obama, he would have run in 2012.

Warren, on the other hand, has not indicated any problem she has with a nominee Clinton, has pretty much come as close as you can to making a Sherman statement ("I will resign immediately if elected") without making one, and has said "No" from the very first time she was asked about it (without ever saying something less certain, or even using the traditional "never say never, but probably no", nope, just plain old "No.").

Right.  Christie really considered.  But Warren could make a show of considering it.  She could pretend to consider it, and then say "No, sorry, the answer is still no", and that would provide a sharp breaking point for everyone to stop considering her.  Otherwise, people will remain uncertain about when to give up on her, and there'll just be a slow tapering off of interest in pretending she might run, with no clearly defined end point.
Logged
RFayette
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,769
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2015, 07:04:21 pm »

On the GOP side, who leads among….?

Tea Party: Walker
white born again Evangelicals: Walker
very conservative: Walker
somewhat conservative: Bush
moderate: Bush
men: Walker
women: Bush
So Bush is going to be the nominee. That was easy Tongue

Um, no?

Granted I'm a big Walker-hack but I don't see it:
1) Walker has lower name-recognition than Bush and still leads him.
2) Bush has high negatives w/ the GOP base.
3) Bush's last name cancels out an "electability" argument whereas Walker has a somewhat strong case.
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