Here's the 2012 Electoral College map. Those 3 states are only 28 electoral votes, nowhere nearly enough to swing the election, which Obama won 332 to 206, but those are the swing states Quinnipiac polled and Hillary lost all of them, to each of the 3 Republicans who were polled. It's not as though Rubio, Walker, and Bush have become particularly strong in these places. It seems to be anti-Hillary:
Clinton gets markedly negative favorability ratings in each state, 35 – 56 percent in Colorado, 33 – 56 percent in Iowa and 41 – 50 percent in Virginia....By the way, Bush has a negative favorability rating in Iowa and Colorado (but not Virginia). Rubio and Walker have positive favorability in all 3 states (possibly because they're less well known than Jeb and Hillary).
“Hillary Clinton’s numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “On being a strong leader, a key metric in presidential campaigns, she has dropped four to 10 points depending on the state and she is barely above 50 percent in each of the three states.”
“Against three Republicans, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Secretary Clinton trails in six matchups and is on the down side of too-close-to call in three,” Brown added.
“That’s compared to the April 9 Quinnipiac University poll in which she was clearly ahead in five of the matchups and too-close-to-call in the other four.”
This poll doesn't do a head-to-head between Clinton and Trump, but it did take a reading of Trump's favorability. It's terrible.
The worst favorability ratings for any Democrat or Republican in the presidential field belong to Trump: 31 – 58 percent in Colorado, 32 – 57 percent in Iowa and 32 – 61 percent in Virginia.
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
Still too early to give much stock to these polls--there'll be a lot of swinging over the next year and a quarter.
But I do believe that as the people have to see Hillary more (she can only hide from the public with scripted events for so long--this isn't the old days) they are not going to like what they see. She's trying to reach out to the far Left, while holding the middle, and this is likely a feat she cannot manage. She can't help but bore, depress or turn off voters. And the voters have the 8 year itch about the Democrats.
On the other side, we have the Democrats electoral college advantage (those states menioned in the polls are MUST wins for the GOP), some key demographics that the GOP is likely to continue to be poor with, and a Democratic party that in recent cycles has held together against what they see as a greater evil (the GOP). We also have voters' natural preference for balanced government, and the GOP controls Congress right now. Add to that a mountain of money for Clinton and primary opponents who seem afraid to attack her.
Ultimately I see this one being close, like the last several--voters will gravitate towards their preferred parties, and a middle 10% plus base turnout will determine who gets in the low 50s and who gets in the high 40s.
When your campaign is trying to simultaneously be that of the Queen Bee and "the best little old me I can be", you may have a message problem. That strategy did not work for her in 2008 and it won't in 2016.
Trump doesn't need to be loved like these other weaselly politicians. He's a winner. He will dominate and all the women want to fuck him. Trump spits on these polls.
"All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me - consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected." - The Donald
Way too early to pay attention. Although if the election turns into a "who is least repulsive" game the Republicans have a fair chance of winning. Better if Trump drops out before the primary.
"When your campaign is trying to simultaneously be that of the Queen Bee and "the best little old me I can be", you may have a message problem."
I think her strategy is "hey look over there!" Which sadly might work!
Brando said: "But I do believe that as the people have to see Hillary more (she can only hide from the public with scripted events for so long--this isn't the old days) they are not going to like what they see."
I agree. Hiding isn't a political platform.
And then consider the low information voter, who is influenced superficial factors. The LIV is a crucial Democrat constituency. Hillary is old, wrinkled, shrill, and wooden with a wide caboose. After the Republicans run a few ads featuring un-retouched and unflattering images of Hillary she will be in trouble deep.
Then consider her story line. Wife of the Governor, wife of the President, a carpetbag move to New York to become a Senator, an implausible appointment to Secretary of State, board of directors at Walmart, cattle futures trader, Whitewater, Benghazi, e-mail servers, the Clinton Foundation riches. A few well crafted negative ads will ensure she won't be seen as everyday person Hillary.
In net, Hillary is an unappealing candidate with lots of negative baggage.
"Although if the election turns into a "who is least repulsive" game the Republicans have a fair chance of winning. Better if Trump drops out before the primary."
That's why it's too early to tell--it really depends on which Republican gets the nod.
I think Trump will stay in the race as long as he can be useful to Hillary. But vile as he is, I don't blame Trump for what he's doing--I blame the people supporting him. They're only encouraging him.
Trump is likely on Hillary's payroll. A third-party Trump run is the only way I can imagine Clinton becoming President. (That's assuming she actually gets the Democratic nomination. She was inevitable in 2008 too.) The press will cooperate by giving the Trump Circus as much coverage as possible, keeping the masses entertained and perpetually reminding the "none of the above" crowd there's an actual entry for that on the ballot.
Trump should stay in until the bitter end. He says what the standard boilerplate spewing pols of both parties refuse to talk about. Soothing bromides from the establishment types of both parties won't work in this election. Trump keeps the focus on what the election is all about, namely, how to reconstruct the U.S. after 8 years of progressive attacks on U.S. economy and military power; national security, and our Constitution. The ultimate irony would be if Wisconsin's Scott Walker drove the final nail in the coffin of Wisconsin liberals who represent the worst this country is capable of. The kinky twist of a Walker Presidency would be the fact that he did not graduate from a college and was successful in exposing the sickness that pervades that state's political power structure. Monkey see! Monkey do! as the abuse of power enabled by a "wink and a nod" from POTUS and the DOJ provided political cover for their illegal activities. The utopian dream is based on a lawless "means to an end" perversion of the Bill of Rights.
The contest was explained as this: the top 10 people with the best Spiderman costume get to be in the first, major national Republican debate. Wait, I may have that wrong - it was the 10 people placing highest in the emotionally driven, gut response polls.
So, Trump said, okay, and got busy designing the best Spiderman costume - wait, sorry - the best emotionally driven, gut response poll-driving presentation while others were mumbling through book reports.
A market was declared, and Trump dutifully designed and delivered a product for that market. What's surprising about that?
Scott and Carly win.
Hillary Clinton must be defeated.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Hillary is a national version of Martha Coakley, who lost "Ted Kennedy's" Senate seat to Scott Brown. Many Democrats are going to be as shocked in 2016 as they were in 2010.
Isn't it about time for Hillary to relaunch her campaign? It's been at least a month.
So Clinton and Trumps favorability/unfavorability ratings are similar. Yet one is a joke and one is the presumed nominee. Nice work dems!
David Hampton: "The kinky twist of a Walker Presidency would be the fact that he did not graduate from a college and was successful in exposing the sickness that pervades that state's political power structure."
To paraphrase Reagan from his Eureka College Commencement Address: Just think what Walker might have accomplished if only he'd completed those remaining 30 credits or so.
David Begley: "Scott and Carly win. Hillary Clinton must be defeated. Carthage must be destroyed"
Thank you Begley the Elder.
Wait, are we still allowed to make subtle Western Civ sub-references?
Uh oh. This just sent up a smoke signal to Chief Fauxcahontas.
But isn't Trump ahead of all those people?
It is an important element of Hillary's strategy that Republicans believe we cannot win so it is OK to throw away our votes, by either not voting, or voting for some 'perfect' candidate who cannot win.
"Clinton gets markedly negative favorability ratings in each state, 35 – 56 percent in Colorado, 33 – 56 percent in Iowa and 41 – 50 percent in Virginia."
This gives me hope and makes me happy. Someone in the GOP should replay that Apple 1984 tv ad of Hillary in 2008 which proved so accurate and effective.
The only problem is that due to her low unfavorables, Hillary's main option will be to drive down the unfavorables of the GOP nominee, and it will be difficult for that man to withstand $1 Billion in negative advertising (see, Romney, Willard Mitt, 2012 Presidential Campaign)
Mark: "Trump is likely on Hillary's payroll. A third-party Trump run is the only way I can imagine Clinton becoming President"
This is a line of thought I'm seeing more and more with folks who remember the '92 campaign well.
Perot runs, gains the lead in the polls, and drops out on the very first day of the Dem convention with the comment (paraphrase) 'the democrat party has revitalized itself' and then Clinton shoots to the top?
The Clintons are nothing if not consistent in their tactics.
The problem with the Trump third party strategy will be keeping the Democrat rank and file on board with a candidate who is not outright winning in the polls.
" He will dominate and all the women want to fuck him. "
Hope springs eternal.
Trump will go third party if his polling stays good. Some Republican must start talking about immigration.
"voters will gravitate towards their preferred parties, and a middle 10% plus base turnout will determine who gets in the low 50s"
In the swing states. These three are key, OH and FL critical. But if GOP candidate can get over 50 here, there's a chance in the EC.
"In the swing states. These three are key, OH and FL critical. But if GOP candidate can get over 50 here, there's a chance in the EC."
Yeah--while the EC is what matters, it's also hard to imagine a candidate winning the national popular vote by a few points and not also winning the EC.
The trouble for the GOP is that the last time they won the national popular vote by more than two points was 1988, and the only time they won the national popular vote by any margin in that time frame was 2004.
Obama is preparing the ground for a Democrat triumph next year with policies like these:
Last week, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, convened a cabinet-level “principals committee” meeting on how to close the prison before the president leaves office in 18 months.
That will go over well with the undecided. Guantanamo closed.
She is a horrible candidate. That's why she hides and doesn't answer questions. The more she is exposed the worse her numbers will be. Especially when she has to speak extemporaneously. She's nothing without talking points.
I can't believe that Hillary Clinton is the best woman in this county that has a shot at the Presidency. No one else does either. If given the nomination, people will cringe and shudder when they pull the lever for her.
There will be hand sanitizer and a wash basin outside all the voting booths.
Bush isn't going to be the candidate. The very amount of money he's raised makes him suspect -- what agreements did he reach with which multi-zillionaires to help them go from filthy rich to obscenely rich in the event of his election?
Mrs. Clinton will be lucky to win as many as ten states against Rubio, Walker, or Perry. Hardcore Democrats get this, but Sanders and O'Malley are so far the only alternatives out there, and they'd arguably do worse. (As a presidential candidate O'Malley could easily lose his own incandescently blue state.) When Warren says "no" does she really mean "not yet"? Would she do better than Sanders running as "lady Sanders light"? Her home state of Massachusetts doesn't seem to have minded that a 100% white woman could game affirmative action by saying that there's a family legend that she's 1/32 Cherokee. Will that fly in other states? Is there some Democrat governor nobody's looking at right who could mollify the Progs and yet be acceptable to independents? It's going to be interesting.
Obama was wrong, Hillary is not likable enough.
My belief has always been that many Hillary supporters want above everything else to defeat [Bush, Limbaugh, Republicans, conservatives, take your choice] and support Hillary only as the best way to achieve that defeat. If that confidence in Hillary begins to erode, there will be a cascade effect, and a serious and rapid movement to someone like Kerry or Biden (Gore? come on...) Jerry Brown or Cuomo? Maybe even Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. October or November is still plenty of time.
Waker and maybe Kasich are competent although Kasich is going to have a Romney-type problem over his support for Medicaid expansion. That is an Achilles heel for him. Rubio is a first term Senator, as are Paul and Cruz.
Perry has a huge problem with his weak performance in the previous debate. Maybe he can validate himself.
Christie may not go over well outside New Jersey and gun control is his Achilles heel.
I do hope the GOP solves the debate question. I don't want to see Santorum and Huckabee making fools of themselves.
Trump is the Elmer Gantry of this cycle.
That will go over well with the undecided. Guantanamo closed.
He's not just going to close the Gitmo prison. He's going to give the whole base back to the Cubans.
Muhahahahaha
Trumps Dr. Evil plan to get Hillary elected is working perfectly. Perfectly!
Oh, wait....
Rubio is not eligible "law prof" (a misnomer I'm sure).
He was naturalized at birth by 8 US Code s. 1401 (1), since he was born "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Of course the State Dept. paved the way for 3 ineligible candidates to run (Rubio, Cruz, Jindal) by lying quietly 2 years ago in 7 FAM that "citizens at birth are not considered naturalized" (See 7FAM 1131.6-3):
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)
Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term
"naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after
birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by
birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory
transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.
All of course to protect the legacy of the Usurper currently in the WH, Hussein Obama. Of course they ARE NATURALIZED "after birth" by the statute itself ("any means whatsoever"), and that naturalization occurs as soon as they are born ("after birth"). They are certainly not given citizenship in the womb or in the birth canal. This is a very desperate and obvious lie on the part of the State Dept.
They tie themselves in a pretzel (which is of course what you do when you lie.) because 8 US S. 1401 was enacted by Congress in their power to enact naturalization law (so of course they are naturalized, and even though 7FAM 1131.6-3 says, "Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.", it also says this:
7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
"a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who
acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born
citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore,
eligible for the Presidency".
Because of course they are not natural born Citizens, since those born in the US to aliens of any sort (legal residents or not), before 1898, were considered aliens until their parents naturalized (See NA 1802 S. 4, see also Wong Kim Ark @ 693).
Marco Rubio was considered an ALIEN when born in his circumstance (to US resident alien parents in the US) until the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898, so it is impossible that he is a natural born Citizen today (A2S1C5 has never been amended, and Naturalization Acts of Congress certainly cannot be deemed to amend the Constitution)
Logic is the killer of lies, but cognitive dissonance and normalcy bias prevents the "law prof" from seeing the enormity of what has happened by the Usurpation by Hussein Obama, and Congress' protection of the treason they committed in allowing it.
Ultimately I see this one being close, like the last several--voters will gravitate towards their preferred parties, and a middle 10% plus base turnout will determine who gets in the low 50s and who gets in the high 40s.
I see a big dip in the youth vote because Hillary, no matter what, is as far from "cool" as humanly possible. The youth aren't going to go thru the effort (in their eyes, anyway) to vote for her.
I think Trump will stay in the race as long as he can be useful to Hillary. But vile as he is, I don't blame Trump for what he's doing--I blame the people supporting him. They're only encouraging him.
Trump is doing well because the OTHER Republicans won't call bullshit bullshit. If they would stop mealy-mouthing everything and be blunt, he'd be a non-issue. He does let the press further ignore Fiorina (who is willing to call out Hillary bluntly), but why won't Rubio or Walker try to stop being so friendly and nice?
Being friendly and nice to Dems doesn't work. We've seen that. For several campaigns, Republicans have been markedly harsher to Republican primary opponents than to the Dem opponent (compare McCain or Romney in the primaries to the general)
To paraphrase Reagan from his Eureka College Commencement Address: Just think what Walker might have accomplished if only he'd completed those remaining 30 credits or so.
I want to ask ANYBODY who mentions Walker's college non-graduation their opinion of noted "intellectual" TaNeheisi Coates.
I keep hearing people say Trump isn't a serious candidate yet a communist, a socialist and a grifter are considered serious candidates? People keep saying Trump is working for Hillary, really? A billionaire is working for a multimillionaire? Don't think so. Trump is doing this for Trump. Whether he is serious or it's a vanity thing I don't know but the guy is seventy years old and a billionaire and as such is in the rare position of not actually having to give a crap what anyone thinks of him. Trump has hit a nerve with the public, one the Democrats can't deal with and the Republican's are at this point too squishy to deal with but if they hope to have a chance of winning they better get on the right side of this issue. Trump will bow out in the end, a guy that can't get a gaming license in Vegas probably has skeleton's he doesn't want disclosed and that is probably the only reason he will drop out. But in the meantime he is having a ball and forcing the Republicans more to the right. He isn't helping Hillary and the polls show that.
Chuck Todd said the more Hillary is the focus, the front runner, the less people like her.
Tom Harkin's body man is right for once.
"People keep saying Trump is working for Hillary, really? A billionaire is working for a multimillionaire?"
He's not doing this for money--he's doing it because he's friends with the Clintons and wants to see them back in power; plus don't you think a billionaire can benefit a great deal from having a president in his debt? The other motive is he is disgusted with the GOP, both the corrupt establishment wing and the far right which he considers too extreme (he's expressed this opinion in the past) and he wants to mock and embarrass them. Think of it as a higher level Stephen Colbert.
Forget for a minute how enjoyable it is that Trump is pissing off the right kind of people, and instead take a close look at Trump and his own history and ask yourself--what is really going on here?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा