eGhazi Effect: Clinton Leads Bush, Walker by 55-40

This CNN poll has to be confounding for the Media:

The two candidates who currently top the GOP field, Bush and Walker, match up equally against Clinton, with each carrying 40% to her 55%. Huckabee gets 41% to Clinton's 55% and Carson has 40% to Clinton's 56%.

[Clinton's] prospects in 2016 appear largely unchanged compared to polls conducted before news broke about her use of a personal email address and home-based server while serving as secretary of state.

In the primaries, Bush leads the GOP pack with 16% to Walker's 13%. Not that that matters much as national polls don't tell you anything about Iowa and New Hampshire, where the stage is set. On the Dem side, Clinton holds a 50 point lead over Biden and Warren.

10 months to Iowa.

< eGhazi: Dan Metcalfe appears to be ill informed | Trump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Ahhhhh....isn't it grand (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    As Ga6th indicates, the numbers are becoming clearer even to the politically myopic.
    What is the next Repub tactic after the media-driven non-scandal of the email?  Well ... we shouldn't have to wait for long, just long enough for the Repubs to pull another manufactured baddie from their backsides.  

    And Militarytracie's husband (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    doesn't have to worry about the Independents shunning Hillary due to the e-mail brouhaha.

    He's being stubborn about the email thing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    Not that in the end it will change his support.  But he says a few things were not handled properly.

    It's that soldier thing, dotting the I, crossing the T, locking it down, buttoning it up :)

    She earned his support though by showing up in Iraq the first year, and actually speaking to him and asking him pointed questions about what was going on on the ground in his opinion.  That sealed that deal. She may have trusted vultures with her AUMF vote, but she showed up for the accountability of it too.


    I think that your husband underestimates (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:22:04 PM EST

    the resistance to technological change a civilian bureaucracy has compared to that of its' military counterpart. I understand the mentality to some extend, my cousin married a guy in the military who is very intense and intolerant of petty mistakes on the part of others.  His father retired as a bird Colonel and his grandfather was the head of the Texas Rangers, so in his case it's in the blood.  

    Instead of a top-down strict hierarchy always you have circles of influence and competing interests to mess things up and not rock the boat, so that things run as smoothly and slowly as molasses.  

    Add to that the time it took them to make their systems relatively robust to hacking, and you have Hillary probably doing the best she could under the circumstances she was faced with. I disagree with some of her politics, but I'm amazed how much mud comes from our side, and when you(generic, not personal)call somebody on their gloom and doom, you(g)run the risk of being labeled a Hillarybot even when merely calling for a modicum of decency and rationality when dealing with this.  

    Heck, at the community college where my father taught for many years, my mother used to say he'd never be promoted into the administration because he would tell you what he thought and he wouldn't sugar-coat his opinions for anyone, student, fellow faculty members, etc.

    This too, shall pass.  He'll see this in a month or two, IMHO.


    For him it will work like this though (none / 0) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:13:41 PM EST
    If Jeb turns out her opponent and he did the exact same thing but crap talked Clinton when the spotlight was on her, he is obviously the least credible and the most manipulative.  My husband expects politicians to be slippery.  He's always checking for the one who is most sane and most accountable for their actions.

    Jeb (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:17:49 PM EST
    is such a dumb@ss I can't believe it. He technically broke the sunshine laws in Florida but starts jive talking about Hillary. Honestly this is one of the reasons I have this sneaking suspicion that she put that story out there because as we all know the idiots in the GOP just can't keep their mouths shut.

    New poll shows Hillary's numbers slipping (none / 0) (#141)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    "Democrats' support is softening for Hillary Clinton ..., with many favoring an independent review of her personal email use when she was secretary of state.

    Support for Clinton's candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll."

    "... nearly half of Democratic respondents - 46 percent - agreed there should be an independent review of all of Clinton's emails to ensure she turned over everything that is work-related.

    There was also sizable support among Democrats for the Republican-controlled congressional committee's effort to require Clinton to testify about the emails. Forty-one percent said they backed its efforts to force Clinton's testimony."

    Linked article for all quotes.


    Another online (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 01:20:03 PM EST
    poll? Please.

    Ipsos is a significant and credible (none / 0) (#152)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    market research company. Many use its polls. Reuters doesn't work with just anyone.

    It says (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    in the article ONLINE poll. Now unless you're saying the article you linked to is incorrect? Yes, they might be respected organizations but I guess they can do erroneous online polls like you gov does too.

    The desperate flop sweat dripping off you and your fellow Repubicans is not a pretty sight.


    Yes, I know it was an online poll. (none / 0) (#156)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 04:24:20 PM EST
    So what? The question is whether it is valid or not. This company is large reputable. So is Reuters. Feel free to provide any evidence that ipsos' poll was not valid. Show us some substance. I am not a Republican and never have been. As I said before, Clinton is my candidate of choice at this time.

    Online (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 05:39:17 PM EST
    polls have been shown not to be reliable.

    pew research

    If an online poll is the best thing you can cite then you've lost the debate.


    Your cited article is over 5 years old (none / 0) (#158)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 06:44:41 PM EST
    and is out of date, and was from a competitor. Online polling, or at least some of them, are much improved since then. You need to dig a bit deeper, and rely on more then clichés and buzz wards

    In the 2012 election: "Ipsos, which conducted online polls for Reuters, came close to the actual results in most places that it surveyed, as did the Canadian online polling firm Angus Reid."  Silver, NY Times.


    Oops, link wasn't live (none / 0) (#159)
    by Green26 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    The CNN Opinion (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 06:57:30 PM EST
    poll cited in this post has better results than the poll you are citing. So if you believe the poll that you are citing you have to concede that a better poll shows no hope for the GOP. Right?

    No, I don't agree the GOP has no hope. (none / 0) (#162)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 12:30:01 AM EST
    It's early. The Repubs don't have a leading candidate yet. Hillary has much higher name recognition than the Repubs. I don't see any candidate, let alone Hillary, getting 55% of the vote. It'z a very nice place for her to be in at this time, but the campaign hasn't even begun yet.

    Here's a March 19 article (none / 0) (#164)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 12:40:44 AM EST
    Looks like even some Dems are expressing at least mild concern about the situation. We'll see if this blows over, or if it gets some traction, as time goes on.



    Desperation (4.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 06:53:03 AM EST
    I get where you're coming from. You are desperate to not have her run. You're scared, terrified and know that the GOP has nothing but clowns. A poll that shows this whole thing has not moved her numbers which is highly reliable doesn't make a difference in your mind.

    Even the people that say they care now are they going to care about it in two weeks? Are they going to care once the GOP clown show is on full display? Reasonable people know this. Conspiracy theorists are gonna conspire.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    but the basic premise of the problem with online polls exists and nothing has changed in five years. They still do not have the reliability of standard polling and there is no way to sort out scamming. Your sample is people who want to participate and not random.

    But anyway I hope the GOP keeps this up. So far it has done nothing to Hillary and hurt the GOP.


    Online polls have improved in the past 5 years (none / 0) (#163)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 12:32:41 AM EST
    Some online polls have been quite accurate in political polling. Some haven't. LIke I said, you need to look at bit deeper, or few are going to listen to your (lack of) analysis.

    Oh Stop Green... (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    ...you have one outlier, that should tell you all you need to know.

    Stop being so obtuse.


    It's (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:08:50 AM EST
    concern trolling and it is quite obvious. Whatever. I would think Republicans would be more concerned about the fact that their insanity only helps Hillary.

    And... (none / 0) (#169)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 09:15:14 AM EST
    ...that all the legitimate polls have them way behind.

    I once kept dumping my iPad cookies (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 20, 2015 at 01:13:31 AM EST
    At the push of three little buttons and voting over and over and over again for abortion in an online Alabama newspaper abortion poll. I did it for four hours, when I quit Alabama was 75% pro abortion.  I could smell the sweat pouring off those 10 yr old Alabama Conservative Dell computer towers :) It was sublime.

    Most interesting to me is that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    even Huckabee and Carson are doing as well or better against her as the so-called GOP front runners. Why is someone a front runner when they do just as bad as the rear runners against the other side's front runner?

    Makes me think the GOP does not really care about the presidency anymore. Or maybe that is just what they want me to think.....

    Those who I know care (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:28:45 PM EST
    They just don't know how to get there anymore.  You can't just be a clod, you have to govern well.

    I like to say that if Texas goes blue there will never be another Republican President in our lifetimes in front my sister-in-law.  It makes beads of sweat break out above her top lip.  I'm just talking trash.  There is no such crystal ball.  But they know they haven't a clue how to gain a Presidency. And the only thing gerrymandering the House did was make certain my sister-in-law will never figure out and deal with what it takes


    that actually (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:08:07 PM EST
    does not suprise me one bit. Consider the evangelicals that make up the GOP base. Consider the fact that evangelicals love Carson and Huckabee. Honestly Huckabee makes Hillary fight for Arkansas. She rolls over everybody else there.  If you understand the minds of these people it makes complete sense that they are polling better.

    Yup, I get that....what I don't get is (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    why no one is calling them the front runners. Does the GOP not want to acknowledge their strength with that part of the base?

    I call (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    the GOP base never never land. It's almost like they live in a bubble and the media doesn't seem them polling at the top on national polls so I guess they don't report it but I would not be surprised to see one of them win in IA if they run. Remember Santorum ended up winning there.

    What is really long overdue (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    and what I would love to see is Iowa get dethroned in importance. Maybe that will be the silver lining if the driver of the clown car wins it.

    Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    has not always been that important. A lot of times they picked someone who never went a whole lot further.

    Iowa (none / 0) (#62)
    by Politalkix on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    Iowa Democrats do a better job picking candidates than Iowa Republicans.

    Without a caucus at the beginning, there will be no way to compete against big money candidates.


    Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:50:36 PM EST
    isn't the only caucus state.

    I like Colorado's paradigm. We have caucuses and primaries.

    Unfortunately, however, our caucuses are too late to do anybody any good. OTOH that didn't prevent them from being subverted.


    Dethrone Iowa? (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 03:34:08 PM EST
    Liz Mair, Scott Walker's on-line communication director, agrees.   However, her opinion was not a popular one in either Wisconsin or Iowa.  Ms. Mair "resigned" after Walker took fire from Republicans for criticizing the first caucus i Iowa.  Liz, we hardly knew ya.

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#170)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 29, 2015 at 09:59:34 PM EST
    cared about Iowa, its caucuses, its corn ethanol?

    I saw no evidence of that in Wisconsin media or around Wisconsin bubblers. Your evidence?  


    Maybe because it doesn't follow script (none / 0) (#117)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    What if the big donors have already made their bets in the Repub party, and the script there writes Bush and/or Walker and/or (at one time & now again) Rubio as the stars?  The $$$$$ Factor act in the script.

    What if the press has the marketing/selling fever that comes with certain names, and that selling-papers etc.-fever blurs their being able to recognize competitors other than the current draws and/or the competitors perceived to keep interest on both sides the closest?  Let's call that The Jeb Bush Factor (or another if passably acceptable to $$$$$ establishment.)  Ex.: NYT weighing in the other day with front page picture of convert Jeb shaking Pope Benedict's hand ... in 2007 ... and that, friends, looks a lot like a friendly assist.


    Who's going to run her campaign? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    Because she got some really bad advice in 2008, and if the same people are on board for 2016...well, let's just say, I think that could be a problem.

    Podesta will be campaign chairman (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    Mook will be Campaign Manager.

    There are a host of others lined up.

    Almost none from the previous campaign. In fact, I think it is none form the previous campaign.


    Hillary scandal milieu (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by nsecchi on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 03:40:21 PM EST
    Media accusations of scandal regarding the Clintons are part of the public's perception of them. It has no effect anymore.Republicans are going to have to try something out of character for them, trying to engage Mrs. Clinton in the context of truth.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 08:38:35 AM EST
    has already conceded the 2016 election. They can read the numbers as good as you can.

    Technically (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:31:02 AM EST
    only +47 0ver Biden. +52 over Warren.

    I would not get cocky (none / 0) (#5)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 10:41:23 AM EST
     In 2012, the Dems won 3 of the 4 closest state races. Ohio, Virginia and Florida (NC went Romney).

      Flip those 3 and the GOP  needs to flip one other state (without losing any won in 2012).

      The EC math favors us but, it would not be very surprising for the Rs to win one among CO, NM, NV, IA. (they won all of them as recently as 2004) It wouldn't be stunning for them to win PA or NH. Even WI could be in play in a "nightmare" scenario.

      It's also worth noting no party has won 3 in a row since 1980-88.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    is not Obama and you should know that if you have been around here a while. She has broader appeal than Obama.

    Except.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    ...in 2008 against Obama.

    She hasn't even decided, but like a sporting event, there is a reason they have the election.

    I fear that the belief that Hillary will win may ignite the right and sedate the left.

    And with those GD Diebold boxes you never really know what is going to happen.


    That's just one reason why we primary (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:07:46 AM EST
    That Was Kind of My Point... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:24:04 AM EST
    ...here is the expected winner, a powerhouse who was more or less was beaten by a rookie.  I think that is mystery to a lot of people, sure they say they know, but can they ensure it enough to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It's one thing to tell a pollster that you would vote for a candidate, it's quite another to actually do it 18 month later after 6 months of non-stop hardcore republican shenanigans.

    Don't get me wrong, while not a huge Hillary fan, if she is the candidate, she will get my vote without a doubt.  If she would just back off her hawkishness a bit.

    If only Edwards could have kept in his pants...


    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:27:17 AM EST
    you can't really compare this to 2008 in the sense that there was 15 points difference between Obama and Hillary back in 2008. Much bigger differences at least right now. Warren isn't running and nobody seems to really care about Biden. The only one that seems to probably have the ability to make a splash is O'Malley.

    You were an Edwards supporter? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    Ha!  So was I.  He talked a great game.  Lacked the spine of iron yet though...and then just collapsed completely.  I loved what he talked about though, what he was standing for until he broke into shards before my eyes.

    Hillary will not shard :) Everyone needs to run though.  She's ready. She is fresh faced, let's cut some young blood teeth on this.  We have fresh blood, blood them :). They need preparation too if this is what they are going to do with themselves.


    I Liked Edwards... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    ...because he was a champion of the poor.

    But I can never forgive him for what he did.  He put his own selfish needs above the very people he championed for, and I believe, people he would have lifted out of poverty.


    While many things are understandable, (none / 0) (#123)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 08:35:50 PM EST
    some things are, simply, unforgiveable.

    What Edward did to his wife is one of those things.


    NYT recently reported HRC is just now (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    setting up an organization in Iowa. And trying to work the Obama campaign strategies. My first thought:  you are already behind.  

    She's fine, but someone needs to run (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    Against her before the clown car does.  I'd prefer at least two others.

    She can't be behind (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:23:39 PM EST
    if no other Dem has an organization in Iowa yet.

    Do you perceive (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    I have P.TSD from 2007?

    Never said, but how can being on the (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    ground first in Iowa  more than a few months before the caucuses take place, before any challengers have done so, be too late?

    Her failure to appreciate the importance of the IA (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    has been a frequent criticism.

    yep (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    Her failure to appreciate the importance of the IA (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:53:35 PM MDT

    has been a frequent criticism.

    True on so many levels.

    She has, (or had, as of last month) (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    A commanding lead in the polls.

    So I'm still not seeing how her timing is late.  Whoever has been saying or writing that appears to have no knowledge of the situation on the ground there, it would appear.

    And how many Harkin Steak Frys has Elizabeth Warren attended, I ask you?



    Talking in past tense (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:13:55 PM EST
    Unless I'm wrong, oc was trying to say that she learned from her mistakes of 8 years ago.

    Ok. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:54:52 PM EST
    However (none / 0) (#136)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 08:43:08 AM EST
    thinking she's too late this year is clearly not supported by the polling on the ground.

    If anything is going to be tough going (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    It will be some of the trauma for some that 2008 wrought...and the convention memories.  But we'll get through!

    She's not prepared enough for (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    the inevitable Warren juggernaut?

    You can't discount (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    The historical aspect.  Both in 2008 and for 2016.  People were/are ready for diversity in the presidency.  It's passed time.  The first real minority candidate was the only person capable of stealing the "thunder" from the first female candidate.  It split the historical vote.  It won't happen again - it can't, Obama already was the first one, there won't be another.  And first Asian/Latino/etc... candidate won't have the same impact at this point because "first minority" was already taken.

    So I mean maybe Warren but she's too left-wing to win the nomination and has no real foreign policy position to speak of - whether Obama had the experience in politics or not he had the international background.  I think there would have to be another viable female candidate to beat Hillary.


    Valid (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    point for sure.

    Still though that's a different argument than Recon was making.


    Yes... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:11:42 AM EST
    ...I agree, I am just saying that elections don't always have the expected results, see Israel.

    True (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    but also the GOP can't help themselves. They attach an abortion ban on a sex trafficking bill? They are stuck in the never never land of playing to the far right and turning off everybody else.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    ...but by some miracle they always seem to make it competitive.  Don't ask me to explain it, but they do.

    On off years (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    they seem to do quite well. Presidential years not so much.

    But Still Competive (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    ...so competitive that a person who didn't get the majority of votes still won.  I wouldn't call two losses in a row an indication that they can't win.

    The theme seems to be if you win one, two is almost a gimme, and three a rarity.

    I don't like it one bit, but the assumption that we basically can't lose is scaring the H out of me.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    saying we can't lose but what I am saying is that the GOP is helping us every which way they can. First off people like divided government and with the GOP controlling the house and the senate that goes against them. Secondly the Clintons believe that when your opponent is drowning throw them an anchor. I think people have been so used to Obama rolling over for the GOP that they've taken it to heart that it's going to be the standard MO and it's not like the Dems in congress have disabused that notion either. But the dems in congress need a leader who can unify their voice and Obama just isn't that into that kind of thing.

    It's my view (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:28:27 PM EST
    that the other part of the equation is a problem for the GOP - Jeb Bush carries a ton of baggage with that name.

    I'm actually quite surprised he is the Establishment GOP candidate.

    Most voters are not that sophisticated. You can predict 90% of the vote right now, and that is determined by R or D imo.

    But the other 10% will think, if form holds, Clinton or Bush? How were things under a PResident Clinton and a President Bush?

    I think Jeb's ceiling is well, around 47%.


    He's carrying a ton of baggage with his (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    Brother's Iraq War architects as advisers.  I can't even believe that, but keep on keepin on Jeb. He IS his own man.

    I think (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 08:32:59 PM EST
    more or less they got stuck with Bush being their candidate after Christie blew himself up.

    If Romney couldn't get past 47 I doubt any Republican can these days. The GOP has gerrymandered themselves in losing presidential elections.

    The GOP's problems are larger than just who they nominate. They can't get rid of W. Jeb just makes that problem more obvious since he's his brother.


    Yes, my family Conservative voters (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    Have advanced college educations but don't understand how they can sweep up in the House and not be on the right track.  I have no intention of arguing them to any kind of understanding either.  It is a strength in my column that they just don't get it.

    Got my hair cut yesterday too, hooray!  It's fun.  My new girl did a great job, she is also in the Guard, she is a combat medic.  She has never seen combat though.  She can't wait.  She is excited we are back peddling on leaving Afghanistan, she is slotted to deploy there in two years if we don't.  She tells me we should have never left Iraq either.  It's the rewriting of history again, and she's just a kid.  I remind her we had to stop-loss soldiers, nobody wanted to die for this Iraq business.  Then I have to stop myself....she has the scissors.  Pick your battles Tracy!


    The reason (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:14:35 PM EST
    your family members can't understand how they lose elections is because even smart people can reside in that bubble.

    I got all mine cut off last week. I had to change hairdressers to do it as the last one kept wanting to give me the Brazilian wax treatments instead of just chopping off my hair from the thyroid damage.


    First we have to talk about the Republicans (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    Stacking the deck..cheating, just getting them to that realization beats the snot out of everyone.  And then the light flickers out in their eyes.  Their life spark dies and they roll around for weeks in a funk and it's all MY fault.  When amnesia sets in again, all they remember is that I killed the spark soundly once they nurture and feed on. It's just a level of hell anyhow, so don't visit it.  They are dying Conservatives. All I'm creating are crappy Christmas presents and long faces :)

    Frankly (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:30:09 PM EST
    I avoid those kinds of conversations at holidays. the only thing that ticks me off is there are people who bring it up. My ex-sister-in-law was a master of walking in, dropping a subject that she knew would get people fighting and then walked out. A real button pusher that one was. My stepfather is a tea party nut. He believes everything the GOP tell him. I used to get emails from these nuts until I started correcting them and asking them why they believed all these conspiracy theories. One of them told me the tea party sent out memos saying that the black panthers were going to skin all the white babies and women needed to stay inside with their children. Where are the critical thinking skills? I think they have been so innundated with fear, fear, fear they are unable to think anymore only react.

    If you are doing (none / 0) (#143)
    by sj on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 01:09:35 PM EST
    massive hair cutting, check out Agyness Deyn for inspiration. She doesn't have hair loss (as far as I know), but her short hair cuts of a few years ago are fantastic inspiration. You can cut most of your hair off and still look fabulous.

    End of off-topic.


    I'd say (none / 0) (#138)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    47% is more likely a floor (assuming a 2 way race).

      The last time any candidate exceeded 53% was in 1988, and Obama's 52.93% in 2008 was the highest by any Dem since 1964. (Clinton won the pop vote by more than 8% in 1996, but it's doubtful that margin would have been so high without Perot.)

      I think the Rs would have to nominate a radical to go below 47% and even then might not go far below.

      It's the EC math far more than any likelihood of a 6%+ pop vote margin that gives Clinton the easier path to a win in a Bush-Clinton race.

       A Bush-Kasich ticket would be very formidable, if unlikely.



    Well (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    that is why Hillary is such a problem for the GOP. She gets those 1964 numbers. The last time a Dem got the numbers of white voters that Hillary gets was LBJ in 1964.

    the GOP has not surpassed 51% since 1988 in a presidential election. And that 51% was during a war from a president who lost the popular vote the first time around. The current trends are showing a decline for the GOP in presidential races and if Romney couldn't get over 47% against Obama in 2012 then that's pretty much their ceiling right now until they modernize the party which isn't going to happen in 2016.


    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 08:51:18 AM EST
    R: 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004

    D: 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012

     Rs:  have won  more elections; have won successively more times (5 times v. 3) and have the only 3peat in the last 67 years.

      I'd also posit that in addition to the not inconsiderable success at electing Presidents, the Rs have succeeded greatly in "winning" the battles over fiscal, monetary, trade, labor, and "economic policy" generally. Although the country has moved to the left on most social and civil rights issues, I think it is noteworthy that a large segment of present day  Democratic leaders could be considered as or more "conservative" than was Richard Nixon on economic issues.


    I am talking post end of the (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    Cold War when the GOP coalition collapsed. The GOP has dominated in all off year elections since 1992 except for 1998 and 2006. In fact Obama has lost more seats to the oppostion than any president in record I believe.

    Sad and true (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    I chalk it up largely to racism because Clinton and Obama are very similar.  Much more similar than Clinton and Warren..who according to Ezra are practically the same thing:) I am borderline chalking that Ezra thing up to sexism, he did throw that Republican House qualifier in.  Hmmmmm, nope, still quacks a little.

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    part of it for sure. The irony I see is that a lot of Dems have had this mentality that Obama is to the left of Hillary simply by virtue his skin color the same way the GOP thinks though it seems many have been disabused of that way of thinking over the last six years.

    That is yet to be demonstrated, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:33:23 AM EST
      which is kind of the point. No offense, but I don't put much stock in the political analysis here, most particularly when it amounts to "my favored candidate is the best  and everyone who disagrees either just doesn't understand or is an enemy." Given that is 99% of the analysis here, I tend to keep an open mind.

      We know that in 2008 she did not have broader appeal among Democrats and it seems nothing more than a hopeful assumption she will have  even as broad appeal among general election voters as Obama has had. Even if she has a somewhat stronger appeal among swing voters there is still the possibility that would be more than offset by lower turnout among minorities and the young.

       Assuming she will coast to the election is not a good idea. That could happen if the Repubs can't stop a far right candidate from gaining the nomination, but while the Repub nomination process often gives the "out there" folks a lot of attention (which probably does have a residual affect in the general)  they manage to nominate people who have much broader appeal.  It would be wise to be ready for that.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    uses hard numbers not airy fairy stuff.

    In 2008 she was polling at 40% and Obama 25% which is different than it is now. And you're making projections about things that you have no basis to back up.

    All the candidates from the GOP are going to be far right by the time the primary comes around. It is what happened to Romney. He could not run as a moderate and get the nomination. He had to sign onto all their crackpot ideas. He couldn't mention that people in MA had insurance. He couldn't mention that MA has some of the best public schools in the nation. Until the GOP accepts that their far right ideas are not going to win this is going to continue. Look at even Jeb Bush who said he wasn't going to pander to the pin heads goes to CPAC and proudly announces that he was glad of practicing Sharia here in America.

    And Hillary will point all of this out.


    I'm not talkong about (none / 0) (#30)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM EST
     her strength in a nomination campaign compared to the 2008 race. Obviously, she doesn't even have opposition at this point whereas in March of 2007, Obama and Edwards were very real opposition.

      I'm talking about her versus the Republican in 11/16. You started out by asserting the Republicans are already "conceding" which is silly in the extreme as a starting point. They are not going to concede, they will probably not nominate a candidate who can attract only a portion of their electorate let alone very few among the swing voters and there is no reason to assume she can run as well as Obama did. Your point about Romney  pandering to the right in the nomination contest works both ways. By that I mean despite doing that (and running against an incumbent) Romney was 4 states from winning. Those states and more are likely to be competitive in 2016 so, you really undercut your own position.

      The one constant in American politics is whenever one side asserts a mandate or semi-permanent majority, etc. it soon  gets shown they are overstating their strength and underestimating the opposition.

      Clinton isn't black which likely means her opposition won't be as virulent and based on covert and overt appeals  to prejudice, but that doesn't mean her support is broader. It's also far from clear she can motivate the minority and youth vote to the extent he did.

       Away from this tiny blog, I know almost no one who is an enthusiastic Clinton supporter. The vast majority of people I know  either think she is the most likely to win  and are more turned off by the Republicans or haven't yet decided whether they are more turned off by Republicans.


    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:14:24 PM EST
    is spending time showing everybody how they cannot govern. They are shooting themselves in the foot. The reason they are going after Clinton is it's a tactic admission that they cannot win against her and they know it. Their numbers never move much past 40% in poll after poll. Generic republican doesn't do that well.

    Yes, her support is broader. Obama basically got the Dukakis coalition but the Dukakis coalition is enough to win. Hillary expands that into working class whites carrying something like 48% of the white vote something not seen since the 1964 presidential election. This is not rocket science.


    polls 20 months (none / 0) (#59)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:20:12 PM EST
     prior to the general mean little. In terms of election day poular vote we see:

    1980-- R 50.75%

    1984 -- R 58.77%

    1988 -- R 53.37% (426-111 in EC,)

    1992 -- D-- 43.01% (Perot 18.9% likely saved the Ds)

    1996 -- D -- 49.23% (less this time for Perot 8.4%)

    2000 -- D -- 47.87% (but lost and Nader took 4%)

    2004 -- R -- 50.73%

    2008 --D 52.93%

    2012 -- D-- 51.06%

      So, the only Dem to get a majority of the popular vote since 1980 is Obama,  but, as we can see that's not the whole story.

     IF the 2008-12 coalitions mostly hold we win, but that is no foreordained by any stretch and any objective view would lead to the conclusion to the extent the states in-play flip from last time they will flip the other way. It does require that the Repubs win the 3 big battleground states and one more. I'm not saying that is going to happen. I am saying that people thinking (and acting as if) it can't happen increases the likelihood it will.

      It is folly to think the opposition will not be strong and well organized and conceding nothing.

      there's a hoary old saying, hope foor the best but plan for the worst. Complacency and dismissal of the opposition is never smart.



    You are (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:36:17 PM EST
    ignoring the fact that the GOP base is dying off and they are not attracting any new voters.

    And you are forgetting that the Clintons do not operate like a lot of Democrats. They believe in throwing your opponent an anvil when they are drowning and running like you're ten points down even if you're 20 points up.

    Right now the GOP is a disastrous mess. Maybe they can get better but there current problem is not solvable in the immeddiate future it would seem. They are too beholden to aging evangelicals and not pandering to the aging evangelicals only makes their losses worse.


    Read (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    this analysis by here: link

    And just because you "don't know anybody" means less than nothing when it comes to imperical evidence. That's the way the GOP thought in 2012. They "didn't know" anybody who was voting for Obama therefore Romney was going to win.


    Now this is some solid analysis (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    "Away from this tiny blog, I know almost no one who is an enthusiastic Clinton supporter."

    Pauline Kael circa 1972 would be proud.


    Okay, BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:33:22 PM EST
    that made me almost snort Diet Coke out my nose.
    And I'm betting that the much younger commenters here have no idea who Pauline Kael is.
    Kudos, sir, and thanks for the laugh.   :-)

    Link please. Thank you. (2.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    Here's my reference (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Pauline Kael reportedly said "I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."


    Now unlike Kael, the commenter appears to believe his immediate circle constitutes a representative sample of Americans.


    I so remember that quote (none / 0) (#108)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    And I thought it was quite funny and pointed at the time.
    But you're absolutely correct.  Pauline Kael had a very finely tuned awareness that she was not in, as you said, a "representative sample of Americans."

    I was relying on my memory, (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    which has not totally evaporated, despite my age.  ;-)
    But, as you can see, BTD provided the appropriate link, for which I thank him.  

    Link to what? (2.67 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    Pauline Kael?

    Try Google.


    I know (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Anything is possible but darn back up your numbers. I mean even that is just silly.

    if you children (none / 0) (#60)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:22:53 PM EST
      don't believe intensity of support is an important factor then there is little point in explaining  it to you.



    you don't think (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:32:21 PM EST
    the opportunity to vote for the first female candidate for president will bring an intensity of support?

    You haven't met my grandma then, who at 80 years old, and possibly shouldn't be driving anymore, was driving people to the polls in NH for Hillary in 2008.  Or my aunts.  Or any of my older female relatives, or their friends, or their husbands.

    Intensity of support will be a huge factor in electing the first female president.


    Not to the same degree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:44:30 PM EST
     that Obama engendered "intensity" among many who are often apathetic.

      A rich old white woman who represents the corporate establishment  probably will attract some greater number of women just because she's a woman as opposed to a rich old white man shilling for the establishment, but will that offset the young and minorities who identified with Obvama's candidacy?


    a couple things (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    The youth vote is a different group of people this time.  So everything is different.  But they also have new issues.  Let's face it younger voters in 2008 weren't overly concerned about the economy while Obama's candidacy was taking off.  They are now.  And many of them are old enough to remember the 90's well, and fondly.

    Obama did not have anything resembling that intensity in 2012, yet he still won by a good margin.

    And I think you discount the "female candidacy" vote way more than you should.


    He says (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    "an old white woman" and doesn't even realize what he's saying. Ageism and sexism rolled all into one. How could some one who is old and a woman have any ideas or any worth?

    My view (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    I do not think that HRC can win with a margin that is bigger than 54%-46%. She can however also lose 49%-51%. I know that this is not a popular thing to say here.

    There is a possibility that we may also see a Perot like candidate in 2016.

    BTD is normally quite level headed. I have a feeling that his exuberant reading of polls (20 months from election day)is just a case of throwing red meat to HRC's fans here. If he really believes this stuff, we are in for a lot of hurt.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    right now there's no Perot candidate on the horizon and unlikely to be one and it's possible that that kind of candidate could take more from the GOP than Hillary.

    The only way Hillary loses is if she repeats the Obama Unity Pony strategy which so far at least going from her tweets is not the way she is going.  After Obama the voters are looking for someone to "stand tall" is the way I see it and none of the clowns that are currently running in the GOP primary seem to meet that criteria.


    At this point Everyone is pulling numbers (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:05:15 PM EST
    from all sorts of nether regions.  Yet ... as a starting point, we can see that Clinton is running in solid double digits against Republican contenders ... and we see that key leadership measurements are quite high as against the negatives for all Republican potentials.  General commentary on the recent early polling samples offer an interesting/encouraging finding ... and that is her relatively high numbers have remained so over the years.

    In the long run, perhaps her method and methodology are paying off ... since it seems that a large amount of her sizable support has remained stable and solid.


    It's "not popular" because ... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    ... it's not credible.  You're just making $hit/numbers up, as usual.

    BTW - Obama didn't get 54% of the vote in 2008.


    I cut and pasted (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    The poll is interesting to me not so much for the numbers but in the backdrop of 2 weeks of eGhazi freakout.

    Hence, my title.


    Well yeah (none / 0) (#82)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:14:54 PM EST
     everyone will be 4 years older, so that's different.

      The youngest voters will be voting for the first time and the remaining ones will be older than the last time they voted. I can't offer any hard numbers, but isn't that always the case?



    8 years (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:20:12 PM EST
    if we're talking 2008.

    If we're talking 2012 - I'd say "show me the intensity" because I don't see it from the youth for Obama that year.


    It was definitely down (none / 0) (#94)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    Voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to an estimated 57.5 in 2012. That figure was also below the 60.4 level of the 2004 election but higher than the 54.2 percent turnout in the 2000 election.

    "Despite an increase of over eight million citizens in the eligible population, turnout declined from 131 million voters in 2008 to an estimated 126 million voters in 2012 when all ballots are tallied. Some 93 million eligible citizens did not vote.

    The turnout percentage of eligibles voting was down from 2008 in every state and the District of Columbia, except two - Iowa and Louisiana. The turnout numbers of citizens who cast ballots were down in every state but six - Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Wisconsin."


    "Already, the Census Bureau's report trumpeted the historically noteworthy finding that black turnout rates in 2012 exceeded that of whites for the first time. This, in an election when white turnout declined significantly and Hispanic and Asian turnout inched down modestly from 2008."


    You obvioulsy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:41:45 PM EST
    are extapolating your intensity and the opinions of your friends onto everybody else. It would seem there are no numbers backing up that.

    You obviously are not a woman . . . (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:25:10 PM EST
    Clinton isn't black which likely means her opposition won't be as virulent and based on covert and overt appeals  to prejudice . . .

    I'm not (none / 0) (#67)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:40:08 PM EST
      but I also don't believe anti-woman prejudice approaches the virulence of racism in this country. Clinton won't have to prove she's a "real American," not a Muslim, etc.

      I don't know that will have much impact on the vote though because virtually all of the people who reject Obama due to race are unlikely highly unlikely to be voting for a D since George Wallace ain't running. I also think "those people" are more likely to turn out in just as great or greater proportion than   in recent elections because they have that "intensity." I'm not as confident the young and minorities will feel the same urgency.  


    You (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:45:17 PM EST
    obvioulsy don't pick up on the garbage that the GOP throws out there when it comes to women. You don't understand sexism only racism but believe me there are a lot of other people who DO see it and "get it".

    What you fail to understand is that Hillary takes 1/2 of the white vote. She picks up 10% more of that vote than Obama. Run the numbers. It would take almost all the African Americans sitting home and she's more popular with Hispanics than Obama to make what you say happen.

    Young people have been shown not to be reliable voters unfortunately but don't count out young women when you make that prediction.


    I would agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    but I also don't believe anti-woman prejudice approaches the virulence of racism in this country.
    It isn't as virulent. Just as present, though.

    I had this conversation (4.25 / 4) (#72)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    prior to the 2008 election with a black friend of mine - about who was more electable a black man or a woman.

    My take was black man - because the prejudice surrounding race is about what someone "is".  In other words, he "is" in a gang, he "is" not American, he "is" violent, uneducated, poor, etc...  It's easier to prove an "is" wrong.  You just aren't that thing.  Sure some people will never see past the race but I'm talking casual racism not the ingrained cr@p.

    With women it's about what they "should be".  A woman's should be in the home cooking dinner, taking care of the kids.  A woman should not be too vocal.  A woman should defer to her husband.  Etc...  It's a lot harder to prove a "should be" wrong than an "is".

    Anyway - he conceded my point, and a year later we had Obama as president.  But while it might not have the same vitrol - the people who are prejudiced against women still presumably like them - it does have an intensity of it's own.  It's just different.

    And while you might not have the intensity from the youth/minorities in the Clinton camp, I think she'll increase the Obama gender gap by a significant margin.


    I agree to an extent, but (none / 0) (#76)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    "President Barack Obama won the two-party vote among female voters in the 2012 election by 12 points, 56% to 44%, over Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, Romney won among men by an eight-point margin, 54% to 46%. That total 20-point gender gap is the largest Gallup has measured in a presidential election since it began compiling the vote by major subgroups in 1952."

      There is not a great deal of room for increasing that number when you consider the number of solid R women. Women are more "reliable" voters as well as you say so the expectations for greater turnout are muted to a degree.

      I also question whether many younger woman are particularly enthralled by Clinton. They did not face the same issues in their lives and careers baby boom women did.

      I also link this to aid in  discussing the turnout issue .

      Again my primary point here is to caution the people capable of rationality against thinking the election is in the bag and that the Repubs are "conceding."

      Even it wasn't stupid, it would still be very counter-productive.


    depends how young (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:17:42 PM EST
    I'm 30.  People my age remember the 90s as the golden era of the economy.  I know some men my age who are very excited about a Clinton, any Clinton, being back in office.  It's entirely probable that there are serious rose-colored glasses to go along with that memory - but that's the memory that exists, and I don't think you should discount it either.

    It was a lot easier for young people to be blase about the economy in 2008.  Since the great recession there is a renewed focus by young people on economic issues and I think the Clinton name will come in very handy for getting younger (but not too young) voters excited about Clinton on that issue.

    Also, while younger women may not have the same exact issues - they are still there.  And we have republicans reminding us on a daily basis just how much they are still there.  Plus it's not even just about personal issues.  There's a difference between wanting a female president because you hope she will make things better for you and wanting one because it's about damn time.  I think a lot of people, young and old, feel like it's about damn time.


    It would be nice to see the majority of the (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    population represented for once . . .

    Yeah, it's about damn time.


    I think the about damn time (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CST on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:36:57 PM EST
    factor will be very large.

    CST... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 03:38:38 PM EST
    ...I would vote for stinky diaper if it would bring us back to the economic 90's.  I am 44.  Which means beyond Clinton, I remember Reagan.  Not the one in GOP folks songs about heroes, but the one who ruled a time when nuclear war seemed almost destined and the one who sold arms to Iran to fund a secret war.

    As mentioned I am not hyped about Hillary, but I think there are a lot like me that know one thing, they are not voting GOP anytime in the near future, and they are not staying home.

    I noticed none of the analysis is including the Hispanic vote, which is naturally growing, but with the GOP playing shell games with citizenship, increasing exponentially.


    "Of a certain age". (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    I have no doubt that the cohort that (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:08:12 PM EST
    poured all its racial animosity/ugliness into the 2008 and 2012 campaigns will be ramping up its anti-female animosity and polishing up the dog whistles for 2016; it was bad enough when the hate had to be split between Obama's race and Hillary's gender in the 2008 primaries, but not having to spend time on race in 2016 means they're going full-tilt on her gender.

    How is that not obvious?

    I do think there's some Clinton fatigue among the electorate - but I think that could well be more than canceled out by the interest in - as someone put it - keeping the GOP barbarians from the gate.  


    Have you noticed some of the photos (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    they started using of her since the email "scandal" hit? They're just warming up (again) . . .

    I assume you are dissing the commenters here, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50:50 AM EST
    not BTD. Cheeky for a newbie.

    Got to keep up, Oc. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    Reconstructionist is not a newbie here.

    Forgot to add... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    from his past posts, I don't believe he would have any problem going toe toe with (or as you call it "dissing") BTD.

    Have actually seen that (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    I don't believe he would have any problem going toe toe with (or as you call it "dissing") BTD.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    If one checks his comment history, he has been commenting for over two years.
    Oc failed to perform "due diligence."   ;-)

    12/13/2012 08:18:47 AM PST (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    Different screen name. (none / 0) (#42)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:27:04 PM EST

    Please clarify. You may email kdog (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    (My email rep.)

    Ha! Your email rep will be able to clue you (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by vml68 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    in without any input from me.
    Or, you could follow sj's links.

    Now, I have to apologise to Reconstructionist. Sorry, Reconstructionist. I did not mean to shine the spotlight on you.


    Eh (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    I'd assume he's dissing me.

    Really (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    you would have to be a newbie to realize that BTD uses hard numbers. He might actually be talking about BTD.

    what constitutes a "hard number?" (none / 0) (#91)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:20:05 PM EST
      Does it mean a number that cannot change regardless of future events?

      If not, how "hard" is it?

      The hard numbers are pretty much limited to the number of EC votes it takes to win and the state-by-state distribution of those votes.

      Sure, we can with a very high degree of confidence, predict the outcomes in about 40 states and with a lesser degree in a few more.

      The rub is it being the remainder that will decide the election.


    See the link (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    below that I linked to.

    And blood this noob too :) (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    Translation? (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    Noob, or N00b (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    is slang for Newbie.

    Blood, as in the Urban Dictionary:


    1. A slang term used by members of the blood set to another member

    2. Wudup blood

    Except I used blood as a verb (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 05:58:09 PM EST
    Bloodying someone in initiation :)

    It's the pagan in me.


    I was thinking the same thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by vicndabx on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    Cheeky for a newbie.

    To which I say, don't let the door hit ya....besides we already have Don if we want a long-winded poster with a desire to school the uninformed ;-)


    Not a newbie (none / 0) (#45)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:35:40 PM EST
    Has had a presence.

    Still cheeky, though.


    I don't remember him (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    breadcrumbs (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    From a "D" to an "R" here, and toe-to-toe here.

    But anyway, how can someone with an active account that is over two years old be considered a newbie?


    Oh (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    Well, to each his own I suppose.

    If you are (none / 0) (#104)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 03:08:09 PM EST
     part of the 1% here, you probably find yourself shaking your head  equally at among others  BTD, jimakappj, and almost everyone with a state name in their handle.



    Different appeal (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    Not really broader. I'd say possibly narrower in some ways.

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    if the Republican candidate wins 270 electoral votes he may very well be elected President.

    Thanks for the insight.  


    Few points (none / 0) (#116)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    It still early.  Until pubs settle on a candidate and low info voters get to know them these polls are skewed to the better known candidate and Hillary has as close to 100% name recognition as possible.  She also has no campaign narrative yet.    You can almost see this as a popularity poll at this point and that should scare pubs but there is still a lot that can happen.  

    The email controversy is inside baseball.  While most will think she did something wrong it's never going to amount to much other then adding to the general perception that the Clintons are always up to something and truthfuly that's baked in.  Only ties to the foundation and money grubbing and influence peddling from it could possibly make this into anything and once again they'll probably be able to get out with some scratches but nothing serious.

    Bill.   He's not factoring in yet.  At some point the question of what Bill will do and how republicans approach him will push it up or down.  I've thought about this a lot and I really can't figure out how he'll move the needle.  How will she sell Bill?   The stay at home Dad or the wealth of experience partner etc....   Interested in everyone's thoughts on this.   What will be the Bill factor?

    She's a women.  Not sure how many points that's worth but if I had to guess its 3-5.  Could be higher.  

    What is voter turnout model?   She will win if she can bring along the Obama coalition.  I haven't read anything on the poll so I can only guess she's getting a couple point bump from the assumption that she's bringing it along but I can't see her turning out the same coalition.   She is not an inspiration, she's older and way less hip and not a good candidate.  But if she can get 90-95% of it that will be enough.  

    Obama not factoring in yet for good or bad.  His job approval and the general way Hillary approaches his eight years will push it up or down but we don't know how we'll be doing in a year so who knows.  

    All that said she's gonna win as of today because pubs don't have a national narrative to combat the standard dem talking points and my secret theory that the public at large really enjoyed the Clinton years of Bill and Newt producing center right/left type government and Americans secretly like gridlock.  

    Don't underestimate (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 06:37:00 PM EST
    her ability to inspire.  I noticed that your conclusion that "she is not an inspiration" almost bumps into your following statement noting that "she is older" etc.  My only caution is there are numbers of regularly voting "older" women who will (or could) allow themselves to feel an unusual identity with the reality of--at long last--a woman candidate. My older self, for example :)  

    There is an eye-of-the-beholder thing that may not be apparent until the eve of the general election.  It is simply a guess, but a sense of pride often has a way of growing slowly at first and, then, geometrically.  If the Repubs could find a charismatic nominee or an unusually inviting individual, the singularity of an HRC candidacy could well be undercut.  But, think about it: Who is on the horizon for the Repubs? And, Jeb Bush ... if there is any dynasty, the third-time-around may be the definer or--at the very least--the reminder of his brother's War and his brother's economy. (At least, if "same old" is the issue, it is better to be associated with good times in the economy and world stability.)


    If we are going to compare 'dynasties' (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 07:57:00 PM EST
    I'll take Fleetwood Mac over the Iraq war any day . . .   :P

    The GOP's (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 18, 2015 at 08:45:11 PM EST
    problems are very deep and they are unwilling to deal with them now hence one of the reasons why Hillary is polling so well. For pete's sake they can't even pass an anti sex trafficking bill without having to put an abortion rider on it. A sex trafficking bill would have sailed through the senate and would have been signed by Obama. What is wrong with these people? Well, I can tell you what is wrong with them. They are beholden to the likes of Pat Robertson and James Dobson aging evangelicals who apparently are calling the shots. They still have the same platform they've had since 1980. The Cold War has been over for a quarter of a century but they're still fighting it in their platform. Economics are the same thing they've been offering since then ignoring the fact that it was the same thing George W. Bush was doing.

    Let's also not pretend (2.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:34:37 AM EST
    that Dems are the party of new and big ideas either.  

    Both parties are out of big ideas because a true big idea would mean recognizing the faults in their own platforms while also taking good ideas from the other and combining them for new solutions.

    The Atlantic


    What a load of drivel that was (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 08:13:59 AM EST
    The gentleman with the sign, he isn't pissed because there aren't any "new ideas", he is upset because our real problems are being ignored...not addressed and festering.

    And the public option has not been defeated, and new " markets" where people will barter for their lives again are inhumane and break down civil society.


    When was (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 05:37:22 AM EST
    the last time the GOP changed their platform? I don't think they've changed it in 35 years while the Dem platform has been changed.

    I haven't looked at it for a few years (none / 0) (#142)
    by sj on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    When was (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 04:37:22 AM MDT

    the last time the GOP changed their platform? I don't think they've changed it in 35 years while the Dem platform has been changed.

    I'm almost afraid to ask how it changed, but....

    how did it change? I liked the traditional one. A lot.


    well one thing that was added in 2012 (none / 0) (#144)
    by CST on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    Was support for same sex marriage.  So that's a good thing.

    From the One Posted... (none / 0) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 02:10:57 PM EST
    A Sacred Contract: Defense of Marriage
    That is why Congressional Republicans took the
    lead in enacting the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming
    the right of States and the federal government not
    to recognize same-sex relationships licensed in other
    jurisdictions. The current Administration's open defiance
    of this constitutional principle--in its handling
    of immigration cases, in federal personnel benefits,
    in allowing a same-sex marriage at a military base,
    and in refusing to defend DOMA in the courts--
    makes a mockery of the President's inaugural oath.

    If it's part of their platform someone forgot to add it to their 62 page 2012 Platform pdf I downloaded from gop.com


    ummm (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    I meant the Dem platform.  That's the Republican Party platform.

    The Subject... (none / 0) (#150)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 02:47:29 PM EST
    ...was the GOP platform.

    it got a bit lost (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by CST on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    This is the exchange I was responding to:

    "When was the last time the GOP changed their platform? I don't think they've changed it in 35 years while the Dem platform has been changed."

    Followed By:

    "I'm almost afraid to ask how it changed, but....
    how did it change? I liked the traditional one. A lot."

    I was explaining how "it" changed for the better.  It being the Dem platform.  Since I assume SJ isn't a fan of the old GOP platform.


    Okay (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    I guess I should have said the GOP changed their platform but nothing towards the future only making it MORE BACKWARDS than it already is. Those kind of changes are even worse than no changes.

    GD Pronouns (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 04:11:04 PM EST
    The Atlantic should do some real reporting (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    Fair points (none / 0) (#139)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 09:54:29 AM EST

     (1) isn't the important thing whether ideas are good or bad not how far back in time (or to whom)  their lineage can be traced?

     (2) even with the "good ideas" isn't it still vital that (a) a coalition/consensus for implementation can be achieved; and (b)the implementation is properly executed?

      To a large extent virtually everything is a variation on or extension of  an existing  policy or a prior  policy proposal.



    Yes fair points (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 19, 2015 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    But the Republican Party will not allow a coalition or working concesus to form that repairs any problem that this Black, Socialist, Kenyan, Usurping President can ever sign. They will eat their own crap first.  And after two years of this they may end up eating their own.

    Some voters were so fatigued by the gridlock they voted to give Republicans full control hoping that they would then govern.  They are not governing.  After two years of this you might be unlucky enough to have the House gerrymandering blow up in your face too.  And if that happens the party is finished in any existing form.

    The Republicans are running on false gerrymandered power as it is, and acting like your last President did with 51% of the vote after a horrific national tragedy, silently though declaring a mandate.

    And the old guard Republicans, I don't know how they live with themselves.  They have raised an entire generation of right leaning minds on spoon fed hate, nothing logical, no critical thinking skills in the paradigm....just hate.