Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471369 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #700 on: November 12, 2015, 06:27:58 PM »
Okay, this article, if true, shows how stupid the GOPe is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

"According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans, who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest."

The late entry strategy would consist of invoking Rule 40 for Romney.

There is no way I would ever vote for the 4th Stooge, Romney.
PPulatie

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #701 on: November 12, 2015, 06:38:57 PM »
At this point, winning the presidency is probably not the best interest of the republicans.

Okay, this article, if true, shows how stupid the GOPe is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

"According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans, who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest."

The late entry strategy would consist of invoking Rule 40 for Romney.

There is no way I would ever vote for the 4th Stooge, Romney.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #702 on: November 12, 2015, 06:58:51 PM »
I hear Harold Stassen is available to run again...........

If you believe as I do that there will be another massive financial event, followed by a "general war", then winning the Presidency is not a good investment. But things would be even worse with the Dems in the Presidency if those events occur.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Rubio responds to Cruz, immigration
« Reply #703 on: November 13, 2015, 06:56:08 AM »
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/12/rubio_hits_back_at_ted_cruz_ted_is_a_supporter_of_legalizing_people_here_illegally.html
Rubio in a press conference:
"Ted is a supporter of legalizing people who are in this county illegally.
He supported a massive expansion of the green card.
He supported a massive expansion of the H1B program, a 500% increase.
I don't think our positions are dramatically different.
Everyone on that stage has supported the legalization of people who are here illegally.
Some define that as amnesty.  I don't.
I think amnesty is the forgiveness of a violation without a consequence.
Are you friends with Sen. Cruz?  Yes, absolutely.  We share the same background and the same views on many of the issues.
I'm not running against any of them.  I'm running for President."

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #704 on: November 13, 2015, 07:12:57 AM »
After seeing the Cruz v Rubio and the Trump v Carson battles breaking out, I have concluded that we are now into the next phase of the Primary battles. 

All candidates are certainly aware of the implications of Rule 40 and also the large number of candidates in the field. The lower ranked candidates mean little in the scheme of things and don't represent a threat to the major candidates except for a handful of support that would probably be split across the major candidates. So it is safe to ignore them for now.

The Big 4 are faced with the votes being split so that no one can get a majority of votes in any state. Hence, any win of a state does not count for Rule 40 purposes. So it behooves all four to begin to whittle down at least two of the Big 4. By doing so, the odds increase of being able to win a state with a majority of votes.

We can expect that the verbal heat is going to increase dramatically from this point on, especially since the next debate is about 4 weeks off and will not be as well viewed as the  holidays are coming up. So it becomes even more important to remain in the news cycle and to try and knock out the competition.

Watch for the Student Protests on Campus. If this continues to gain steam, then it is going to have a large impact later down the road. Add to that Europe and the immigration crisis ongoing there, and the winter and spring will be very interesting.............
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Minimum wage amateur hour
« Reply #705 on: November 13, 2015, 08:52:43 AM »
PP from Trump thread:  "Certainly the issue is who gets to determine "minimum wage", but revoking minimum wage is not going to sell in any election."

That's right.  The political question is about raising the minimum wage, not ending it.  Min wage is both popular and counter-productive.  This nomination contest is allegedly about who is willing to speak the truth even if it's not what people want to hear. 

On minimum wage, Carson showed his learning curve, getting it half-right, learning more and then getting it half-right in a different way.

Trump was attempting a valid point when he stepped in it like a political neophyte, wages are too high already.

Rubio understood that raising the minimum wage is a false question.  "If it would better their lives I would support it."

The question about min wage isn't about min wage; it is about how to help those people, and he seamlessly pivoted to the real question, very specifically and persuasively answering how he would help those people.

You will not win by accepting and playing on the liberal premise playing field.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Ready to rumble or stumble?
« Reply #706 on: November 13, 2015, 09:08:36 AM »
After seeing the Cruz v Rubio and the Trump v Carson battles breaking out, I have concluded that we are now into the next phase of the Primary battles.
...We can expect that the verbal heat is going to increase dramatically from this point on, especially since the next debate is about 4 weeks off and will not be as well viewed as the  holidays are coming up. So it becomes even more important to remain in the news cycle and to try and knock out the competition.
---------------------------------

Yes, but who can knock out whom?  Trump called Carson pathological.  Does that help Trump?  Doubtful.  Cruz is sharpening his differences with Rubio.  But as Rubio clarified back, it weakened the Cruz's argument for trying to pull from Trump's support.  

Negativie attacks work, but likability is one of the top traits people vote on.  The hard-hitting one may not be the beneficiary of the hard hit.

Candidates stay in the news cycle by making themselves available and going on the shows.  Our so-called 'professional journalists' all want to be the one who draws the quote that takes them down.  Who breaks the grain story.  Who got Hillary to say the VA wasn't that widespread.  Who got JEB to say there are a lot of other cool things he could be doing.  Who breaks the next one?

Events unknown will play a role.  Like pp says, the immigration mess in Europe elevates that issue.  The rise of ISIS made candidates like Rand Paul irrelevant.  What next?  Events could shake the Dems too.

Like Crafty said, watch the head to head matchups with Hillary.  As the primaries get close, this becomes a contest of who can win the general election.  In the latest, Carson is still matching up the best and Trump the worst. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Small samples, lousy polling.  It's still fluid.  

Supporters of certain candidates may decide they like their guy but maybe not for President.  The majority polled are still undecided.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #707 on: November 13, 2015, 09:30:43 AM »
"(W)atch the head to head matchups with Hillary.  As the primaries get close, this becomes a contest of who can win the general election.  In the latest, Carson is still matching up the best and Trump the worst. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Small samples, lousy polling.  It's still fluid. Supporters of certain candidates may decide they like their guy but maybe not for President."

Yes.  I would add that for a while now many of these small sample polls are showing the same thing-- Carson polling the best against Hillary and Trump the worst of the Rep majors.  IIRC one had Carson up by 11 against Hillary and Trump down by 3.

I defend Carson against what I perceive the be the excesses and imprecisions of Pat's criticisms of him, but of course I am aware of what may turn out to be some seriously weak links in Carson as a candidate and as a president.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #708 on: November 13, 2015, 10:59:35 AM »
You defend Carson because you think Snarly is a real babe and you want her on the ticket with him. :evil:
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #709 on: November 13, 2015, 11:49:27 AM »

Whatever.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #710 on: November 13, 2015, 12:52:16 PM »
PP,

"You defend Carson because you think Snarly is a real babe and you want her on the ticket with him"

I don't agree.  CD is a very open minded fair guy.

Carson does make excellent points, but I have to admit I find it hard to think of him as President.

But this endless recurrent talk of dusting off Romney and bringing him back makes me want massive anti-nausea medicine.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #712 on: November 13, 2015, 02:11:11 PM »
ccp,

That was my terrible sense of humor showing through.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #713 on: November 14, 2015, 08:46:10 AM »
Now is the time to consider how the Paris attacks will affect the National Elections. We can assume:

1. ISIS takes a front and center stage among candidates on both sides. How to respond to ISIS will be the question. Do we wage all out war, or do we go with a piecemeal approach, just using Special Forces in limited attacks on various facilities? Since ISIS is heavily in Iraq, how do we handle that? Go back in with troops, or use air power which will not defeat them?

What about Syria? Destroy ISIS, but how?  And what about the other Syrian insurgents? Who are they and will the side with ISIS and fight us as well? Take out Hassad or not? If we do, who takes over? Will they be any better or worse?

How long and what forces do we commit? What are the goals? What is the exit strategy? Do we want a scenario where 15 years later, we are still "in country"?

2. Immigration now becomes more important than ever as a topic. Do we cease the Obama policy in admitting Syrian refugees? If not, how do we vet them? If Obama continues to accept Syrian  refugees, should Congress act to stop it before the election?

How does this affect border control arguments? How will Americans react to building a wall? Now, candidates will have to place on the table whether they will build a wall. They will also have to describe now what they will do with the illegal immigrants? Blanket Amnesty? Path to Citizenship? Or ship them out?

Rubio, Cruz and Carson are now going to have to address all issues like Trump has already done. The plans can be general in nature. But they must address the basic concerns. Build a wall, deport, or granting legal status.

For Trump, he is one lucky SOB. This just took away the potential problems with his Iowa speech this week. It is all now about Syria and Immigration.

I have been saying watch to Europe and see what happens, and that will have a major effect in the election. This is the beginning event. If more attacks occur or more problems with the immigrants happen, all bets are off. And if there is a successful attack in the US prior to the primaries, then Trump becomes even stronger.

What a mess of a world......
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Dem debate
« Reply #715 on: November 14, 2015, 06:50:07 PM »
I am live blogging, just kind of a slow typist.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Dem debate
« Reply #716 on: November 15, 2015, 08:13:38 AM »
I am live blogging, just kind of a slow typist.

I already posted everything memorable, nothing, now on with the rest.

First, they wanted no one to watch and the attacks in Paris certainly helped them keep this out of the news.

Hillary made no new gaffes, looked and sounded about the usual, positioned herself as carefully as should could between sounding reasonable enough to win and sounding socialist enough to compete with her current opponents.

For only about the second time I noticed that ccp is right, Hillary is running for President.

Backing up, let's meet Martin O'Malley first.  I haven't seen him much before.  Seemed like a pretty normal, middle aged aged, white guy, Democrat.  Looks to me like he was a two term Governor of Maryland, two term Mayor of Baltimore and two term councilman before that.  Served as chair of the Democrat Governor Association.  What you might call a professional politician.  He is not as unqualified or unimaginable of a nominee as people seem to think.  If Baltimore were a model city or Maryland a model state for the future success of the union, then he is your guy!  Unfortunately, the facts indicate otherwise.

Twice O'Malley pointed out that Maryland has the highest median income in the country.  Not tied to any of his policies that we know, but maybe tied into the wealth that surrounds Washington DC.  Our family business, T Rowe Price, is in Baltimore and so is Johns Hopkins.  Neither were created by O'Malley.  Baltimore and MD are also home of the riots and all the signs of abject failure in the city.  

With the debate following the terror coverage, all gave strong words.  O'Malley said ISIS is evil and our role is to confront evil.  The Middle East is a mess but that does not mean boots on the ground.  Call it what it is, "Radical Jihadis perverting one of the world's great religions".

Maryland raises taxes, he bragged, on everyone with the sales tax and on the 'top 14%' with the income tax and maybe a dozen other ways, brandishing his credentials.  Note that Ben Carson changed his residency to Florida upon his retirement.

Borders should have a welcome sign, the Statue of Liberty is our symbol, not a wall.

Hillary's Wall Street reform he called "weak tea".  He favors "gun safety".  MD decriminalized small amounts of marijuana.  And "Black Lives Matter", which is when I first noticed that R's have a black frontrunner, 2 Hispanics and a woman with executive experience, while the Dems have 3 pretty boring whites running.  They face a real challenge trying to keep their 95% hold and large turnout of blacks under Obama.  Recall that when Obama was off the ballot in 2010 and 2014, they lost nearly everything.

Asked what crisis he faced that shows he is ready, I liked his answer.  No Governor faces a crisis similar to what a Commander in Chief will face.

Bernie Sanders.  First, he looks and sounds exactly like a parody of himself, an SNL character.  He tried to take it to Clinton but wouldn't hit her directly on her weakest points.  Answering Bernie's charges and proposals is an important task for conservatives even after he leaves the national stage.

Bernie says "the system is rigged."  "People are working longer hours for lower pay."  "The benefits all go to the rich."  "Climate change is directly related to the rise of terrorism."  "The disastrous invasion of Iraq led to the rise of al Qaida and ISIS" (an attempt at a direct hit on Hillary).  "Regime changes have unintended consequences"  All policies have uninteded consequences he later admitted related to the raising of minimum wage causing job losses.

In our defense budget of $600B,  less than 10% of it goes to fight international terrorism.  We must destroy (radical Islam).  "The cold war is over".

Bernie was asked how high he would go with his top tax rate on the rich.  He said he would keep it lower than that socialist Eisenhower who had it at 90%.  Still looking into it, "we don't have a number yet" (or didn't want to say).

Healthcare, repeal Obamacare go single payer, Medicare for everyone.  "Healthcare is a right."  Wanted Hillary pinned down on that point, but the moderator wanted a commercial break.  Real unemployment is 10%.  Something else is over 50% (black teenage unemployment?).  No disposable income.  When we raise minimum wage and with mandatory living wage someday, all that new money in circulation will [trickle down / trickle up?] through the whole economy bringing prosperity to all.  Obvious follow up missed, why not more, why not sooner if it is all that simple.

Wall Street banks, break them up!  Credit unions are the model of the future.  Wall Street is part of corrupt campaigns, implying and really saying that Hillary is an example.  The current Wall Street business model is fraud and greed.

1 in 4 African American (males?) ends up in our criminal justice system.  The system is broken.  End minimum sentences [don't examine the welfare state that pushes those males out of responsible for the family.]  Send marijuana laws back to the states.  [What?  They oppose that for almost everything else.]

Free college, make states pay 2/3rds.  Study hard and you have hope.  [Students who are poor AND have a great academic record can already write their own ticket.]

The greatest crisis Bernie faced was the reforming of our veterans programs.

He hates the way America is now; we need a revolution to take it back.  [Take it back to when?]


Hillary Clinton, On terrorism and ISIS, she will "do a better job".  [Than Obama, than she did as Sec of State?]  WIll use tools like diplomacy and law enforcement.  [Huh?]  ISIS threat, must defeat, not contain.  [She is a hawk, just doesn't really have any direction.]  "We support those who take up the fight."  [Lead from behind]   Dickerson, moderator, you missed it? [The ISIS threat]  Answer:  A ramble about AssAd and blaming the region.  "Middle East is complicated, can't paint it with a broad brush."

Dickerson:  Did you get it wrong with Libya?    HRC:  Khadafy had American blood on his hands, turned on his own people, the people elected moderate leaders.

Dickerson:  Rubio called it Radical Islam, will you use that term?  Rambling no, violent extremists use religion for power and oppression.

Fighting ISIS, we already have authorization "AUMF", and we will have to go to congress for authorization to update it.  Which is it?  We will screen 65,000 Syrian refugees.  [Even though there is no resource or database.]

More programs, more spending, how will you pay for it all?  "No tax increase on the middle class." "Tax the wealthy more."  "Close loopholes."  She will not raise the debt!  [That literally means no deficits from Day One, possibly a lie?]

Healthcare, keep Obamacare, improve it.  "Republicans want to throw it back into debate".  [True.]
Keep the costs down.  [No plan to do that.]

Dreamers legal, make a pathway.  People that have been here for decades stay.  [Let's lock in that point in agreement.  That was decades plural.  If you have been here illegally for 20 years and otherwise tax paying, law abiding, then that is where we set up the pathway to becoming legal.  Maybe she meant, been here for minutes...]

Minimum Wage:  Go $12 nationwide, not $15.  Let other places like Seattle And NYC go further.
[Why not go higher if it is a good policy and delivers what it promises?  It isn't; it doesn't.]

Guns:  "No immunity for gun makers."  This is her liberal attack on rural state US Senator Bernie.  "This is an emergency."  "90% of Americans support gun safety."  [4 out of 5 dentists support sugarless gum for their patients who chew gum.]

The Clinton gaffe: The 9/11 defense of her Wall Street campaign contributions.  A nice angry clip that has NOTHING to do with the question asked, how dare you Bernie question me on my billions!  (Bernie voted for all the same NY 9/11 funding.  So did everyone else in the Senate.)

Dickerson took another shot at the emails, wanted to know if there is another shoe to drop.  "After 11 hours I think the answer is clear!"  [Huh?]  Followed by ramble.  Asked in follow up, people want us to talk about the issues, no answer again.  In this format, one tough question, one tough followup, no one points out that we did not get an answer.  There is an FBI investigation going on with Hillary and her aides, IS THERE ANOTHER SHOE TO DROP?

Dickerson to each:  What was the biggest crisis you faced that shows you are ready to be President?

HRC:  It was the planning for the bin Laden raid.  [Not Benghazi??!!]

« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 08:20:41 AM by DougMacG »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #717 on: November 15, 2015, 08:28:14 AM »
That was the dem debate? I thought it was some sort of infomercial for Depends...

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Dem, Radical Islam?
« Reply #718 on: November 15, 2015, 11:24:14 AM »
Meanwhile as they pick up the pieces in Paris, Dem candidates cannot bring themselves to utter the words, 'radical Islam'.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/radical-islam-whats-that.php

« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 01:08:56 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #719 on: November 15, 2015, 12:01:32 PM »
It was the French Tea Party........didn't you get the memo?
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #720 on: November 17, 2015, 08:53:29 AM »
The Latest Morning Consult Poll.  It is interesting, especially seeing that of Obama voters in 2012, Trump pulls 29% of them.  This is only the second poll since the debate to be released. The other was the Reuters/Ipsos poll with the last tracking day of Nov 13.  Both polls show consistency with Trump leading and Carson second.

The questions are:

1. Why have no other polls been released yet for after the debate? And after Trump's attack on Carson?  Have any others been done, and if so, why not released?

2. What doe the polls mean?  At this stage until other polls are released, who the hell knows?

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/PARTY_ID_:2,LIKELY_PRIMARY15:1,PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150823-20151113/type/smallest

PPulatie


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #722 on: November 17, 2015, 11:07:17 AM »
Newest Reuters Ipsos Tracking Poll just came out.

http://polling.reuters.com/#poll/TR130/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150817-20151117/type/day

The debate and subsequent Iowa speech appears to have had a minor effect, dropping Trump down about 1.7%. He is still higher than before the debate. (Two days polling were over Sat and Sun,  which could account for a bit of the drop.  Weekends do have a statistical effect, often negative in nature.)

Carson appears to have had a 4% drop, not good.

Rubio and Cruz appear to have had a bit of a bump from the debate, but nothing too significant. Jeb, a tiny bump.  All expected.

Paul got a pretty good bump, but that too was expected.

The next couple of days with Reuters should be very interesting. We shall begin to see how the Paris attacks affected things.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #723 on: November 17, 2015, 11:13:01 AM »
ccp,

Yes, Real Clear Politics does show Hillary beating Clinton, but if you notice, RCP ignores a lot of other polls on their averages. They don't even use the Reuters poll, just primarily media pools, and PPP, which is owned by a Dem/Clinton supporter.

And the Marist Poll was so totally out of left field, it was incredible.  It seems a total outlier, but is in the RCP average.

BTW, Morning Consult shows Hillary 44 v Trump 43. Carson leads Hillary, 43 to 43%.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #724 on: November 17, 2015, 03:44:21 PM »
Jindal gone from race.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #725 on: November 17, 2015, 04:32:47 PM »
Everyone is asking where is the Jindal 0% support going to.......... :evil: :evil: :evil:
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #726 on: November 17, 2015, 06:19:08 PM »
Everyone is asking where is the Jindal 0% support going to.......... :evil: :evil: :evil:

Cruz first and then Rubio.  Both could go up by...  0%.

Jindal is a good man.  Two term Governor, successful record, young, smart, conservative.  Didn't connect.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #727 on: November 17, 2015, 07:01:32 PM »
Woof.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #728 on: November 18, 2015, 06:07:48 AM »
Rubio tied for second in NH latest poll  This is starting to get interesting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html

Trump 23, Rubio 13, Carson 13.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #729 on: November 18, 2015, 06:16:32 AM »
Rubio leads Clinton in Colo by 16 points, 52-36.
Carson leads Clinton in Colo 52-38.
Quinnipiac.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #730 on: November 18, 2015, 07:17:58 AM »
On Quinnipac:

Trump is leading Hillary 48 to 37%

Quinnipac also proclaimed the Carson surge in Iowa. And Q missed the 2013 Governor Race in Colorado by only 13 points. Finally, Colorado cancelled their primary, so this is of little importance.

The NH polling is interesting, but there is certainly a lot of volatility to it.

Sep  23 Trump at 26%;  Nov 1 Trump at 18%.;  Nov 15 Trump at 23%

Carson bleeding support which appears to go to Rubio.

These were all done by WBUR.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #731 on: November 18, 2015, 07:28:23 AM »
 :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #732 on: November 18, 2015, 09:15:32 AM »
"Trump is leading Hillary 48 to 37%"

Too good to be true.   If true watch for the liar to come out real strong on the Isis crises.

We know 40% of the nation will never vote in any way except to keep out ANY republican.

So these numbers are very hard to believe.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #734 on: November 18, 2015, 11:49:00 AM »
ccp,

If you look at the internals, Sanders does better than Hillary against all of the candidates in Colorado. But that said, Quinnipac has been showing some weird results in most of their polls this time around.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #735 on: November 18, 2015, 11:55:24 AM »
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #736 on: November 18, 2015, 03:00:49 PM »
"Rubio leads Clinton in Colo by 16 points, 52-36.
Carson leads Clinton in Colo 52-38."
Cruz tops Clinton 51 - 38 percent
"Trump is leading Hillary 48 to 37%"
"Sanders does better than Hillary against all of the candidates in Colorado"

Yes, weird poll, not reliable, but interesting.  Trump is 4th best out of 4 in the general election matchup in a swing state, but at least nearly within the admitted margin of error.

Colorado voted blue quite a bit lately and has regretted it.  They also have a significant illegal population.

It would be even more interesting to see the internal polls the DNC sees, getting too late for Dems to panic and swap her out.

Rubio has the highest, positive favorability spread.  Hillary Clinton has the lowest.  The matchup Dems fear most!


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #737 on: November 18, 2015, 03:13:33 PM »
Kasich:  Yeah, weird-- and it will hit a lot of people that way.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #738 on: November 18, 2015, 08:29:21 PM »
Kasich:  Yeah, weird-- and it will hit a lot of people that way.

It might be a good idea to fund the department of defense and close 4 other departments first.

That would make 25 in the room.  Even the teachers' union would call for a smaller class size.

Do you know anyone including Obama and Biden who can name them all?

The Glibness

Vice President of the United States
Joseph R. Biden

Department of State
Secretary John Kerry

Department of the Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew

Department of Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter

Department of Justice
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch

Department of the Interior
Secretary Sally Jewell
 
Department of Agriculture
Secretary Thomas J. Vilsack
 
Department of Commerce
Secretary Penny Pritzker

Department of Labor
Secretary Thomas E. Perez

Department of Health and Human Services
Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell
 
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary Julián Castro
 
Department of Transportation
Secretary Anthony Foxx
 
Department of Energy
Secretary Ernest Moniz
 
Department of Education
Secretary Arne Duncan
 
Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Robert McDonald
 
Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson

The following positions have the status of Cabinet-rank:
 
White House Chief of Staff
Denis McDonough

Environmental Protection Agency
Administrator Gina McCarthy

Office of Management & Budget
Director Shaun L.S. Donovan

United States Trade Representative
Ambassador Michael Froman

United States Mission to the United Nations
Ambassador Samantha Power

Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman Jason Furman
 
Small Business Administration
Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet

25.  New Kasich Secretary of Happy Thoughts
« Last Edit: November 18, 2015, 08:33:25 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential: Fox poll, NH, Nov 2015
« Reply #739 on: November 19, 2015, 08:44:03 AM »
Trump 27
Rubio 13
Cruz  11

Sanders 45
Clinton  44

But look at the general election matchups:

Clinton 47
Trump  40

Rubio 47
Clinton 40

This is a small, swing state.  Trump matches up worst; Rubio matches up best.

PP,  Let me guess, Northeastern Cuban Americans were over-sampled ...      :wink:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #740 on: November 19, 2015, 09:43:34 AM »
Underlining the point I have been making for a while now-- we need to keep our eye on the 1-on-1 with Hillary numbers!!!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #741 on: November 19, 2015, 11:25:26 AM »
No...not Cuban Americans.......just Rockefeller Republicans and elitist commies.

1 on 1 numbers really mean nothing now either because it is all about how the nomination process goes. And as long as there are at least three strong candidates, no one will when a majority of voters in any one state, so the cigar smoke filled backroom will name the nominee.

Glad everyone likes that scenario................especially since they will try to give us Jeb if he is still in it.  I still expect this will result in Rubio.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #742 on: November 19, 2015, 11:37:28 AM »
Actually 1-on-1 numbers mean EVERYTHING and should be a major if not THE factor in determining the Rep candidate.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #743 on: November 19, 2015, 11:44:41 AM »
No...not Cuban Americans.......just Rockefeller Republicans and elitist commies.

  )    It is a tiny electoral state but R's need all the electoral votes they can get in a close election.  Think Bush-Gore 2000, 4 votes matters.

1 on 1 numbers really mean nothing now either because it is all about how the nomination process goes.

   Clinton 47, Trump  40
   Clinton 40, Rubio   47    

   - It's early but it means something.  As Crafty suggests, people eventually will want to win.

And as long as there are at least three strong candidates, no one will when a majority of voters in any one state, so the cigar smoke filled backroom will name the nominee.

   - First the primary voters will have their say and everyone will know the result.  Trump leads now but cannot win the nomination without being seen as best to win the general election.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #744 on: November 19, 2015, 01:44:49 PM »
Watch for the National Ipsos poll coming out in 3 days. If the scuttlebutt is correct, there should be medical personnel standing by to treat Doug and Crafty. 
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #745 on: November 19, 2015, 03:03:54 PM »
My guess is Dr. Ben will be moving down noticeably.  He is not handling foreign affairs questions well. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #746 on: November 19, 2015, 03:41:31 PM »
 :-D :-D :-D  Just a part.....
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #747 on: November 19, 2015, 04:19:41 PM »
Here it is. In a 3 way race of Trump, Carson and Rubio

Trump 43%
Carson 26%
Rubio 25%

Page 7 & 8 for some interesting results.

http://ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=15090
PPulatie


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #749 on: November 19, 2015, 05:03:01 PM »
The Right Scoop is correct. They are just practicing their religion.  How can we deny them the right to practice what they preach?
PPulatie