FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2024, 12:26:40 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
  FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: FL-Mason Dixon: Rubio & Bush with leads against Hillary  (Read 6395 times)
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« on: April 20, 2015, 03:03:15 PM »

In before pbrower, who will probably not include this poll in his map thread.

Because, well, it shows Republicans ahead ...

Mason-Dixon's final poll was about 7% off in 2012.

In any case, winning Florida is not optional for Republicans.  It's what they absolutely need to do, in order to have any chance at all.  You don't celebrate over Florida any more than Democrats should celebrate over winning Pennsylvania.

That explains it.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2015, 03:32:24 PM »

Quinnipiac had Bush up by 3 in Florida a couple weeks ago. I have that one.

Florida gets polled often.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,858
United States


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2015, 10:59:57 PM »
« Edited: April 21, 2015, 02:35:11 AM by pbrower2a »

Everything you wrote is wrong. I've already stated why.

You're just going to have to find out the hard way I guess.

Honestly, it's time for the GOP to just start defending the Senate, as I've suggested before, and do damage control.

Keep Rubio in the Senate, Kasich as VP would help Portman, and pull out all the stops to help Ayotte & try to pick up a Nevada seat.  Feingold seems pretty set for a victory, and Kirk's in trouble.  

This is not a good time to be a non-Democrat. Sad  


My thoughts are quite similar to yours, Monarch, but I have a hard time convincing people similar to me of this.

I despise Hillary Clinton  and find the prospect of her as President disheartening, but the reality is reality.  And it sucks (in my opinion).

My analysis of the Senate:

Approval polls only. Updated to reflect a 'better' poll for Senator Bennet in Colorado (D-CO), a new poll (and first) of approval for Kelly Ayotte (R-NC), and the likelihood of Bob Menendez (D-NJ) resigning with the near certainty of an appointed Senator replacing him (the appointed Senator would be up for election in 2016):  



White -- retiring incumbent, with "D" or "R" for the party in question.

Light green -- Republican incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.
Light orange --  Democratic incumbent apparently running for re-election, no polls.

Blue  -- Republican incumbent running for re-election with current polls available.
Red --  Democratic incumbent running for re-election with current polls available.


Intensity percentage shows the first digit of the approval of the incumbent Senator --

"2" for approval between 20% and 30%, "3" for approval between 30% and 39%... "7" for approval between 70% and 79%.

Numbers are recent approval ratings for incumbent Senators if their approvals are below 55%. I'm not showing any number for any incumbent whose approval is 55% or higher because even this early that looks very safe.

An asterisk (*) is for an appointed incumbent (there are none yet, but I predict that there will be one soon!) because appointed pols have never shown their electability.
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 0.028 seconds with 13 queries.