Reply With Quote
I don't think she's going to run for an election in 2014, but she may have been running for the last 10 years.
Repugs have NO ONE in the list of above that will ever be President.
Certainly don't see any darkhorses coming out of the GOP pack...of the possible contenders Ryan is closest but don't be so convinced that all liberals are sold on Hillary....many see her as a continuation of Obama policies they don't like, such as the NSA and its business centric policies that hurt the little guy...
Clinton Breaks 50% against GOP Rivals for 2016
Source: McClatchy-Marist Poll
For Immediate Release: Wednesday, February 12, 2014
This McClatchy-Marist Poll Reports:
If Hillary Clinton were to run for president in 2016 and win her party’s nomination, a majority of registered voters nationally would support Clinton, regardless of her Republican opponent. Her closest compe or is Paul Ryan who Clinton leads by single digits. Clinton has a similar lead when up against former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
“Voters are still a long way from making choices,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Ins ute for Public Opinion. “But, right now, Clinton is in a league of her own.”
Among registered voters nationally, here is how Hillary Clinton fares against potential Republican candidates:
• Clinton -- 52% -- leads Paul Ryan -- 44% -- by 8 percentage points. Four percent are undecided. When McClatchy-Marist last reported this question in December, Clinton received 56% to 40% for Ryan. Four percent, at that time, were undecided.
• Clinton -- 53% -- is also ahead of Romney -- 44% -- by single digits. Three percent are undecided.
• Against Mike Huckabee, Clinton opens up a double-digit lead. Here, 55% of voters are for Clinton compared with 41% for Huckabee. Four percent are undecided.
• Clinton -- 56% -- has a seventeen percentage point advantage over Ted Cruz --
39%. Five percent are undecided. In December, Clinton received 57% to 35% for Cruz. Seven percent, at that time, were undecided.
• Clinton also outpaces Jeb Bush by 20 percentage points. 58% of voters nationally support Clinton compared with 38% for Bush. Four percent are undecided. In December, Clinton had 53% while Bush received 41%. Six percent, then, were undecided.
• When matched against Rand Paul, Clinton leads by 20 percentage points. A majority -- 58% -- supports Clinton compared with 38% for Paul. Four percent are undecided. In that previous McClatchy-Marist survey, 55% backed Clinton while 40% were for Paul. Five percent were undecided.
• Against Chris Christie, Clinton -- 58% -- outdistances Christie -- 37% -- by 21 percentage points. Six percent are undecided. When this question was reported in January, 50% of voters were for Clinton while 37% were for Christie. 12% were undecided.
• Nearly six in ten voters -- 58% -- support Clinton compared with 37% for Marco Rubio. Four percent are undecided. In December, 52% backed Clinton while 42% supported Rubio. Five percent were undecided.
• Against Sarah Palin, Clinton receives 62% to 35% for Palin. Three percent are undecided. Two months ago, 59% were behind Clinton compared with 36% for Palin. Four percent were undecided.
A majority of registered voters -- 52% -- has a favorable view of Clinton. 43% have an unfavorable impression of her, and 5% have either never heard of her or are unsure how to rate her. In January, 51% of voters thought well of Clinton. 39% had a lesser view of her, and 10% had either never heard of her or were unsure how to rate her.
Half of Americans, including a slim majority of voters, give Clinton high marks for her tenure as Secretary of State. 50% of adults approve of the job she did. This includes 18% who think she did an excellent job and 32% who believe she did a good one. 28% rate her performance as fair while 19% give her poor marks. Three percent are unsure. Among registered voters, 51% of voters think highly of the job Clinton did as Secretary of State. 26% report she did an average job while 20% say she fell short. Three percent of voters are unsure.
Read more: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-cont...d%20Tables.pdf
The only dark horse I see in the Democratic side is progressive darlin Elizabeth Warren but for the next two years Warren will have to continue to make a name for herself, especially from rich donors, while the Clinton machine is tenacious at fundraising...Warren would better serve as Secretary of The Treasury IMO...
I don't think she's going to run for an election in 2014, but she may have been running for the last 10 years.
Repugs have NO ONE in the list of above that will ever be President.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-14-2014 at 10:07 AM.
The way I read these numbers, 43% negatives for Clinton is a really high negative starting point.
While I agree that the democratic nomination may be Clinton's to lose, I honestly don't think she can win a national election unless the republicans nominate a fool (which we all know they are capable of doing).
In 2008 Clinton had been the butt of late night jokes for about 14 years (8 under Bush 43 and at least 6 under Bill Clinton). Her tenure as Sec'y of State helped her
in the standing with the public, but as Priebus said recently, the Red team has a "truckload" of negative stuff to throw at her, and you know they are chomping at the bit to do it. I think that the negatives are going to be super high for her.
I think she will run, but I honestly don't think she can win.
I don't think those superPACs and all that money they are spending would be like it is if she was not expected to run. There is no benefit for her to announce early that I can see.I don't think she's going to run for an election in 2014, but she may have been running for the last 10 years.
Repugs have NO ONE in the list of above that will ever be President.
Your using late night jokes as a basis for someone's electability?
What negatives can they really throw at her? Benghazi? I mean she is a bankster but they are not going to say that because they are all that way too.
No matter what, the Clintons can sell their 1993-2000 run and Bill is immensely popular. I just don't see how you can dismiss the Clintons especially against the likes of Christie, Paul, or whoever else the GOP can come up with.
Yeah, I can't picture people voting for Jeb Bush either after W ruined that name to all but talkradio Republicans like Wild Cobra. Maybe Biden can pull the upset in the primaries.
Criticism towards Hillary also plays directly with the "war on women" meme the blue team has been advancing for a long time...
misogynist Repugs' War on Women can only go so far.
Like Obama's two victories, Hillary would carry women, blacks (those not denied the vote), Hispanics (those not denied the vote), the young, LGBT, some of those categories by huge margins, very probably more than enough to carry the election.
red states still have to rig their electoral votes from winner-take-all to some kind of proportional, where numerous rural/backwoods red districts would outnumber the more populous but less numerous urban/suburban districts. They will certainly try to do that. It's the only way they can win nationally.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-14-2014 at 03:37 PM.
Yeah, rightly or wrongly, I think that late night jokes really do play into someone's electability. Look at what they have done to the electability chances of Joe Biden.
As for who the red team nominates, remember that i also said that they are entirely capable of nominating a fool, and if they do, Clinton has a good chance. They have a lot of stuff from when she ran before about how she exaggerated her role in certain situations, etc. etc., that they were planning on running against her then but Obama got the nomination so they never did.
Clinton is as electrically hated by the right as Pelosi is. They have a special kind of hatred for her that I will never understand but have heard repeated over and over again. And she DOES have a sharp way about her that lots of guys, particularly, find especially threatening. Whatever they can come up with, they will come up with, and I think the effect of that type of thing was evident when Obama beat her for the nomination in '08. Don't forget that she was presented at that time as 'Invincible", but it didn't turn out that way. I think that whole thing will repeat itself…again, depending on who the red team nominates.
Dems pendellum has already swung.
Obama is hated way more than Hillary ever has been by the talk radio right. Way more than Pelosi.
Well, agreed. But Obama is not gonna be running again. Maybe I should have said "outside of Obama, …Hillary is hated as much or more than Pelosi".
"Obama is hated way more than Hillary ever has been by the talk radio right. Way more than Pelosi."
As the years go by, the right-wing's all-azimuths/all-targets hate machine simply cranks up the hate. It's good for business. Their "Christian" red-states LOVE to hate, just like Christ.
When it comes to national elections, the GOP base is irrelevant to the outcome as they are going to vote one way regardless. It's all about the independents. For as much as she threatens men she has support amongst the fairer gender. Polls are what they are and have been well demonstrated to predict election outcomes.
She has a tremendous lead in opinion but its two years until that matters. At the same time the reason widely credited for Obama's success is now working for her. She has his election machine ready to go.
Which is why I don't get how it should be a concern, considering Obama won two terms with much worse than Clinton would ever get. Those are votes she can absolutely never win with a D in front of her name, but Obama proved they're not necessary in the 2010s.
It's going to be interesting to see how the red party handles the primaries... I suspect they're going to push through a certain candidate like the last time.
If that's the case, Rand Paul is toast. And the few guys I can see getting propped up are Christie and Ryan.
Under such scenario, there's going to be a lot of whining from tea party/"true conservaties" (say, redstate.com readers), even though they'll fall in line eventually.
Social conservatism is such an election loser in this day and age, they need to find somebody that's willing to at least move to the center a bit in that area.
Why would Ryan turn Teabaggers off? He's captain austerity, captain tax cuts for the rich, he wanted to make getting an abortion a crime, he voted for all of Bush's unpaid for crap, I mean, you can't get more teabagger than Ryan.
I think your right on....say what you will about the Bridge scandal, but Christie is toxic now and Ryan is the guy that could draw together the conservatives who actually think the bogus charge that Obuma raised the debt more than all Presidents is true can be combined with the Obama is forcing gay marriage on us crowd...
It is all about the independents, but its also about the soft votes in either party...if voters aren't interested in what their party is selling, as many Democrats seem to be today because of Democratic leadership lack of spine to stand up for progressive interest, they won't vote...few may switch...but most won't vote...It's all about the independents.
Yeah, he's the total package for people who think Darwin is full of but who believe 100% in social Darwinism.
I think you guys are right about Ryan. I think he will be the candidate as a compromise between tea baggers and traditional repubs. He isn't as crazy sounding (he is truly just as crazy, but he hides it better than some of the others) and he is photogenic and can say to the base "See, I told you that Romney couldn't win".
I don't see anyone else coalescing the republican primary voter group like he can…but if the baggers get hold of the primaries, anything can happen, and a Dem will have a walk-in.
I understand what you are saying, but if you could hear the level of hatred and vitriol that I hear, I just think it will carry some weight. I may be wrong, but I have seen it before and I am amazed at the extent to which this country is unready for a female leader. Every other democracy and half of the autocratic countries in the world have had female heads of State, but the American public has a fear of women that is undeniable. Why else can every other country, including England and Germany and the Philippines and India and all sorts of other countries get a female head before us? It is a ceiling that I'm not sure Hillary is the one to crash.
I may be wrong…I just don't believe it yet.
It can't possibly have more vitriol than the teabagger armed revolution fantasies ever since Obama got elected. Not trying to defend Clinton because she is a truly horrible candidate, but the vitriol against her isn't at all comparable to that against that nigger that's taking their country away from them.
That's the biggie... he's establishment and they hate him... see:
http://www.redstate.com/stridentcons...hall-of-shame/
http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/02/t...-of-paul-ryan/
http://www.redstate.com/2014/01/30/p...al-immigrants/
FWIW, the comments section I always find hilarious. Wonder if that's where Yoni ended up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
