Poll suggests Dem Presidential win

[Value Buy]

even before anyone is nominated with 270 electoral votes.
After watching the Republican debate tonight, they might be correct


images.politico.com/global/2015/08/05/presidential_election_model_080415.pdf

That said, I am still going with Jeb right now.

[happyhoix]

Way, way too early for that poll to mean anything.

I'm not even certain at this point that Hillary will be the dem nomination. She's kind of floundering right now.  

[Shooby]

I don't care for Jeb at all. However, he did cut taxes in Florida and people have flocked there.

And, I don't think Hillary is a sure thing by any means. I dont' think she will win the Nomination. I think there are other candidates who will run against her and beat her.

[djAdvocate]

i suggested this months ago.  unless the GOP fields a better candidate, Hillary will win.  i don't believe Jeb is a better candidate, unless something really awful happens to Hillary on the way to the WH- such as Bernie Sanders.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 7, 2015 7:31:03 GMT -5 Shooby said:

I don't care for Jeb at all. However, he did cut taxes in Florida and people have flocked there.

And, I don't think Hillary is a sure thing by any means. I dont' think she will win the Nomination. I think there are other candidates who will run against her and beat her.

Jeb has a serious advantage over Walker when it comes to economics.

first of all, the GDP of Florida is way higher.
secondly, the economy has done much better in FL than WI over the last half decade.

advantage: Jeb

but Bush has a very serious disadvantage, and that is his lineage.

edit: i don't think the election will be nearly as close as the OP suggests.

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2015 13:08:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i suggested this months ago.  unless the GOP fields a better candidate, Hillary will win.  i don't believe Jeb is a better candidate, unless something really awful happens to Hillary on the way to the WH- such as Bernie Sanders.

djAdvocate, did you look at the link? It is an analytical model that uses data that is not candidate dependent.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 8, 2015 13:13:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 8, 2015 13:08:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i suggested this months ago.  unless the GOP fields a better candidate, Hillary will win.  i don't believe Jeb is a better candidate, unless something really awful happens to Hillary on the way to the WH- such as Bernie Sanders.

djAdvocate, did you look at the link? It is an analytical model that uses data that is not candidate dependent.

yes.  and there is a problem with that.  the problem is that it forces the person polled to envision the IDEAL candidate.  the degree to which a candidate fails to rise to that ideal is the degree of inaccuracy.  this is, essentially, straw polling- and it DOES show the underlying disadvantage for the GOP this year, which means they will need an EXCEPTIONAL candidate to overcome the demographics that will present themselves in a national election year.

[billisonboard]

Aug 8, 2015 13:42:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 8, 2015 13:13:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

djAdvocate, did you look at the link? It is an analytical model that uses data that is not candidate dependent.

yes.  and there is a problem with that.  the problem is that it forces the person polled to envision the IDEAL candidate.  the degree to which a candidate fails to rise to that ideal is the degree of inaccuracy.  this is, essentially, straw polling- and it DOES show the underlying disadvantage for the GOP this year, which means they will need an EXCEPTIONAL candidate to overcome the demographics that will present themselves in a national election year.

You read the link and then typed the rest of that response? I must be taken to a different article than you because there is nothing at the link I am taken to that requires any of that.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 8, 2015 14:03:26 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 8, 2015 13:42:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  and there is a problem with that.  the problem is that it forces the person polled to envision the IDEAL candidate.  the degree to which a candidate fails to rise to that ideal is the degree of inaccuracy.  this is, essentially, straw polling- and it DOES show the underlying disadvantage for the GOP this year, which means they will need an EXCEPTIONAL candidate to overcome the demographics that will present themselves in a national election year.

You read the link and then typed the rest of that response? I must be taken to a different article than you because there is nothing at the link I am taken to that requires any of that.

i extrapolated from the data, which is primarily economic.  sorry, i am playing catch up here, bills.

is there something that strikes you as particularly wrong with the analysis?

[billisonboard]

I am going to just walk away from this one.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 0:35:18 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

I don't think Hillary will win, she doesn't have enough women behind her as a demographic. She's been polling the same as Obama did during his elections and it's not enough, considering that she will give up a lot of votes in other demographics.

I also don't think Jeb's lineage hurts him as bad as DJpolldancer would like it to. Look at the Kennedy's. Ted was elected several times after driving a car into a lake and killing a woman. It's a familiar name. You hate "Bush" so you equate Jeb with George, but the average voter doesn't. They're more likely to equate Hillary with Bill, and after the smear campaigns are over his name will be crap.

i don't have data on how Hillary's support among women compares to Obama's, but that would be the relevant statistic.  if you do, post it.

as to the Kennedy comparison, i don't think it is just.  that was a PERSONAL problem for Kennedy, but he was also not a national politician.  the relevant comparison would be to a failed presidency like Harding, Taft, Buchanan, Johnson, Pierce, Tyler, Fillmore, Hoover, Harrison, Bush and Nixon.  of those on the list, only Bush is running.  but let's not kid around here- Bush is actually POPULAR among Republicans, so it would be really weird for a Republican to see how much he is loathed by the left and middle- but he is.  so, despite what you, me, and other Republicans and independents might think, he is going to lose considerable votes in the middle and left because of NOT ONLY who he is, but who he proposes to make his advisors- which is basically a carbon copy of his brother's cabinet.  i would rather shoot myself in the foot than elect that.

edit: i would also add that as UNpopular as Bush is as a brand among the center and left, Clinton is a POPULAR brand.  the 90's are looked back upon very fondly by any voter old enough to remember them, and anyone younger than them are largely voting Democrat, anyway.  i might be mistaken, but the latest historians poll (this year) put Clinton ABOVE REAGAN.  that is some heavy heavy favor by people paid to analyze these things.

i think it is going to be VERY TOUGH for the GOP to win in 2016, if Hillary is the candidate.

[Phoenix84]

Aug 7, 2015 7:29:17 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Way, way too early for that poll to mean anything.

I'm not even certain at this point that Hillary will be the dem nomination. She's kind of floundering right now.  

Yeah, I don't understand the all these people claiming they "know" how it's going to go.  We don't even know who's going to be nominated, let alone who's going to win.  A year and a half is a venerable eternity in politics.

The campaigns haven't even really started yet.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 9, 2015 16:37:10 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Aug 7, 2015 7:29:17 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Way, way too early for that poll to mean anything.

I'm not even certain at this point that Hillary will be the dem nomination. She's kind of floundering right now.  

Yeah, I don't understand the all these people claiming they "know" how it's going to go.  We don't even know who's going to be nominated, let alone who's going to win.  A year and a half is a venerable eternity in politics.

The campaigns haven't even really started yet.

some people like to make really strong assertions early in the race.  i am not one of them.  Hillary could lose to Bernie Sanders.  i would put that at about a 10:1 longshot right now.  Bush could more easily lose the nomination.  i put that at about even odds right now, but i suspect that things will move more generally in his favor as time goes on.  right now, it is Trump by a commanding amount.  four separate polls have him up by more than 10%, which is a very big lead- and no fluke either- he has lead in the last TWELVE straight polls.  what needs to happen is that some of these THIRD tier candidates that have no real chance of winning drop out, and see where their support goes.  but right now, it is Trump -vs- Clinton, and in that matchup, Clinton might conceivably win every state on the map.

edit: speaking for myself, the birther lunacy alone is enough to sink him.  that was seriously crazeballs, and seriously unpresidential.

edit2: Walker needs to do something to get back in this.  his numbers suck, but he could easily make this interesting.

[weltschmerz]

Trump's numbers are up because people like being entertained by clowns. Folks like going to the circus but they wouldn't bring a clown home.

They taste funny.

[mmhmm]

Aug 10, 2015 3:51:18 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Trump's numbers are up because people like being entertained by clowns. Folks like going to the circus but they wouldn't bring a clown home.

They taste funny.

I agree that's a good deal of what we're seeing here, welts. It's the novelty. Kinda like a lot of Limbaugh's audience watches for the comedy value. Just the way people are these days. I don't doubt, however, some people are fed-up enough they might just prefer Trump over anything else on the horizon. I can't see it, but I can see how some might.

[happyhoix]

Aug 9, 2015 16:42:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 9, 2015 16:37:10 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Yeah, I don't understand the all these people claiming they "know" how it's going to go.  We don't even know who's going to be nominated, let alone who's going to win.  A year and a half is a venerable eternity in politics.

The campaigns haven't even really started yet.

some people like to make really strong assertions early in the race.  i am not one of them.  Hillary could lose to Bernie Sanders.  i would put that at about a 10:1 longshot right now.  Bush could more easily lose the nomination.  i put that at about even odds right now, but i suspect that things will move more generally in his favor as time goes on.  right now, it is Trump by a commanding amount.  four separate polls have him up by more than 10%, which is a very big lead- and no fluke either- he has lead in the last TWELVE straight polls.  what needs to happen is that some of these THIRD tier candidates that have no real chance of winning drop out, and see where their support goes.  but right now, it is Trump -vs- Clinton, and in that matchup, Clinton might conceivably win every state on the map.

edit: speaking for myself, the birther lunacy alone is enough to sink him.  that was seriously crazeballs, and seriously unpresidential.

edit2: Walker needs to do something to get back in this.  his numbers suck, but he could easily make this interesting.

Walker shot himself in the foot with his stance that there should be no exceptions to the 'no abortions' rules, not even in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

1) I don't think most voters want to spend the next 4 - 8 years engaged in a fight about abortion rights, and 2) even the most ardent pro-life people usually make an exception when the mother's life is in danger.

[bean29]

Aug 9, 2015 16:42:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 9, 2015 16:37:10 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Yeah, I don't understand the all these people claiming they "know" how it's going to go.  We don't even know who's going to be nominated, let alone who's going to win.  A year and a half is a venerable eternity in politics.

The campaigns haven't even really started yet.

some people like to make really strong assertions early in the race.  i am not one of them.  Hillary could lose to Bernie Sanders.  i would put that at about a 10:1 longshot right now.  Bush could more easily lose the nomination.  i put that at about even odds right now, but i suspect that things will move more generally in his favor as time goes on.  right now, it is Trump by a commanding amount.  four separate polls have him up by more than 10%, which is a very big lead- and no fluke either- he has lead in the last TWELVE straight polls.  what needs to happen is that some of these THIRD tier candidates that have no real chance of winning drop out, and see where their support goes.  but right now, it is Trump -vs- Clinton, and in that matchup, Clinton might conceivably win every state on the map.

edit: speaking for myself, the birther lunacy alone is enough to sink him.  that was seriously crazeballs, and seriously unpresidential.

edit2: Walker needs to do something to get back in this.  his numbers suck, but he could easily make this interesting.

Why do you like Walker?  I personally can't stand him.  The man can't take a position on anything except abortion unless he knows how the pols are running or his advisers tell him what he thinks. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2015 3:51:18 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Trump's numbers are up because people like being entertained by clowns. Folks like going to the circus but they wouldn't bring a clown home.

They taste funny.

i disagree with this assessment.  Trump is succeeding because he is blunt.  people support those that they can relate to.  some people never get past that, and others dig deeper.  when they dig deeper with Trump, i am pretty convinced he will lose support, but so far, he has had quite a vertical ride.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2015 9:51:15 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Aug 9, 2015 16:42:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

some people like to make really strong assertions early in the race.  i am not one of them.  Hillary could lose to Bernie Sanders.  i would put that at about a 10:1 longshot right now.  Bush could more easily lose the nomination.  i put that at about even odds right now, but i suspect that things will move more generally in his favor as time goes on.  right now, it is Trump by a commanding amount.  four separate polls have him up by more than 10%, which is a very big lead- and no fluke either- he has lead in the last TWELVE straight polls.  what needs to happen is that some of these THIRD tier candidates that have no real chance of winning drop out, and see where their support goes.  but right now, it is Trump -vs- Clinton, and in that matchup, Clinton might conceivably win every state on the map.

edit: speaking for myself, the birther lunacy alone is enough to sink him.  that was seriously crazeballs, and seriously unpresidential.

edit2: Walker needs to do something to get back in this.  his numbers suck, but he could easily make this interesting.

Why do you like Walker?  I personally can't stand him.  The man can't take a position on anything except abortion unless he knows how the pols are running or his advisers tell him what he thinks. 

i don't like Walker.  i was just stating a fact.  if he wants to be in this game, he has to do something.  he is polling less than 10%.

[happyhoix]

Aug 10, 2015 10:27:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2015 3:51:18 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Trump's numbers are up because people like being entertained by clowns. Folks like going to the circus but they wouldn't bring a clown home.

They taste funny.

i disagree with this assessment.  Trump is succeeding because he is blunt.  people support those that they can relate to.  some people never get past that, and others dig deeper.  when they dig deeper with Trump, i am pretty convinced he will lose support, but so far, he has had quite a vertical ride.

I have a drunk uncle is who blunt, too. I wouldn't elect him to anything.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 10, 2015 14:51:04 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 10, 2015 10:27:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i disagree with this assessment.  Trump is succeeding because he is blunt.  people support those that they can relate to.  some people never get past that, and others dig deeper.  when they dig deeper with Trump, i am pretty convinced he will lose support, but so far, he has had quite a vertical ride.

I have a drunk uncle is who blunt, too. I wouldn't elect him to anything.

your drunk uncle would do well in the GOP.

[kent]

Aug 11, 2015 13:52:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 10, 2015 14:51:04 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I have a drunk uncle is who blunt, too. I wouldn't elect him to anything.

your drunk uncle would do well in the GOP.

I don't think you can exclude the democratic crowd - he would probably be a good fit there as well. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2015 14:07:08 GMT -5 kent said:

Aug 11, 2015 13:52:17 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your drunk uncle would do well in the GOP.

I don't think you can exclude the democratic crowd - he would probably be a good fit there as well. 

that might be true.  both parties are pretty extreme right now.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2015 14:21:47 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Actually I don't think the mainstream Democrats are (pretty extreme) at the moment.  Hillary is the personification of Bill Clinton's "Third Way" and "Triangulation" that brought the Democrats back to the right and away from the post '60's leftists.  In doing so they also were co-opted by Wall Street and the legal eagles in the party. 

Which is one reason why Bernie Sanders is doing so well.

if you look at the voting patters of the parties, they have never been further apart.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 11, 2015 19:50:03 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

if you look at the voting patters of the parties, they have never been further apart.

That may be, but it is because of the Republican hard tack to the right in the last 20 years, even while the Democratic party has tacked toward the center tried to maintain that position.  Many party members do not agree with this of course, but every Democratic nominee after Mondale has been a moderate.

i was thinking mostly of congress.

[Value Buy]

Aug 12, 2015 5:49:57 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Congress is a totally different kettle of fish since they get to rig the congressional districts every few years. Some of the districts lean so heavily in one direction that the primary is just to see which politician from the same party can take the most extreme stance. The opposing party has no chance of contending, so you get these really extreme right and left wing whackadoodles winning over and over. You can't really extrapolate that to national elections since they don't take place in rigged districts.

You can extrapolate it slightly, to the nomination process now since Democrats share the states with nominees percentage of the vote. It keeps some of the losers in the race and creates an opportunity for the crazies to demand their pound of flesh at the Convention. 
Look at some of the platform inititives that sometimes get passed, which can hurt their candidate in the actual election. 
Republicans, even though they are more of majority vote takes all, cannot get away from abortion to wind up putting a rope around their candidate's neck.