Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Hillary trailing Bush, Rubio, Walker

TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.

Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

Also, to point this out, they all can lead about equally in VA since Rubio's 2.8 is within Walker's range, too. So even though he could theoretically be behind by 0.8, he could also be even. So this poll shows that all 3 do equally well in those states (especially Rubio/Walker).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.

Definitely on the Rubio bandwagon, and Bush seems like a nice enough guy.. Kasich is kind of an interesting candidate to me. He's not some well-known guy but he managed to win 25% of the black vote in 2014. If a Republican could win 25% of the black vote every Presidential election, there would never be another Democratic president.

Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Quinnipiac hasn't done a national poll in a few months, but the last one they did (May 28th) had her leading Rubio 45-41, Paul 46-62, Bush 47-37, and Walker 48-37.

Colorado doesn't surprise me as being a state Republicans could do well in. It's been more of an Obama-leaning state than a Democratic-leaning one. Ultimately winning Colorado and Iowa still wouldn't make up for losing Virginia, but it would help.

Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.

Rubio-Kasich doesn't sound bad. I'm very confident Rubio would wipe the floor with Clinton.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 1:48:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:37:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.

Definitely on the Rubio bandwagon, and Bush seems like a nice enough guy.. Kasich is kind of an interesting candidate to me. He's not some well-known guy but he managed to win 25% of the black vote in 2014. If a Republican could win 25% of the black vote every Presidential election, there would never be another Democratic president.

Kaisich would lock up Ohio and have appeal in PA. When I do my electoral predictions I put PA as a swing (the none going to anyone) because Romney spend like 8 million in NV to get 46% of the vote. He spend around 2.9 million in PA to get 47%. If he reversed that, he could have taken PA (it has trended red since 1988, same as Iowa and Minnesota). If Reps lose Philadelphia by the same margin that they win the rest of the state, they flip PA red. So I think Kaisich (who has appeal in the Pittsburgh area) or a well-funded campaign could flip it. So look out for PA.

I am not even talking about related stuff, lol. But yeah, Rubio, Bush, and Kaisich could probably flip PA. I dunno about Walker -- I think he is too far right to get ~45% of the Philadelphia vote.


Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Quinnipiac hasn't done a national poll in a few months, but the last one they did (May 28th) had her leading Rubio 45-41, Paul 46-62, Bush 47-37, and Walker 48-37.

46-62? Seems legit :P

Yeah, Rubio and Bush (Bush when he advertizes nationally) will have the largest appeal. They will talk in Spanish on spanish TV and radio, flipping FL, CO, NM (maybe), and NV (maybe). They are also moderate, so they appeal in OH and PA. Paul and Walker have no chance in PA and are in for a rough ride in OH. VA will prefer Walker and Paul to Rubio and Bush, but Rubio and Bush could still probably win it (More likely Rubio since he has both moderate and some base appeal).

Colorado doesn't surprise me as being a state Republicans could do well in. It's been more of an Obama-leaning state than a Democratic-leaning one. Ultimately winning Colorado and Iowa still wouldn't make up for losing Virginia, but it would help.

Depends on the candidate. I don't see Santorum, for example, winning it. I see Kaisich, Rubio, Bush, and Walker being able to flip it though.


Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.

Rubio-Kasich doesn't sound bad. I'm very confident Rubio would wipe the floor with Clinton.

It would lock up FL and OH, put PA into play (and maybe Michigan to some extent). Kaisich also would poll well in the Midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota (though Minnesota will probably stay D in this election), so I truly think that a Bush-Kaisich or Rubio-Kaisich is the best for electability.

Also, do you like Walker? he has never done it to me. I have no rational reasons to not like him, he just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, lol.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:33:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 1:48:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:37:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.

Definitely on the Rubio bandwagon, and Bush seems like a nice enough guy.. Kasich is kind of an interesting candidate to me. He's not some well-known guy but he managed to win 25% of the black vote in 2014. If a Republican could win 25% of the black vote every Presidential election, there would never be another Democratic president.

Kaisich would lock up Ohio and have appeal in PA. When I do my electoral predictions I put PA as a swing (the none going to anyone) because Romney spend like 8 million in NV to get 46% of the vote. He spend around 2.9 million in PA to get 47%. If he reversed that, he could have taken PA (it has trended red since 1988, same as Iowa and Minnesota). If Reps lose Philadelphia by the same margin that they win the rest of the state, they flip PA red. So I think Kaisich (who has appeal in the Pittsburgh area) or a well-funded campaign could flip it. So look out for PA.

I absolutely agree about PA. Republicans have been consistently gaining there for years, and Democrats have basically maxed out Philly and the suburbs. It's only a matter of time until it flips. Pittsburgh itself has actually been trending Republican as well - Romney won the metro area, and the Democratic vote share in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh's county) has actually decreased since 2004. All a Republican has to do to win is hold the Romney states, and flip Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

I am not even talking about related stuff, lol. But yeah, Rubio, Bush, and Kaisich could probably flip PA. I dunno about Walker -- I think he is too far right to get ~45% of the Philadelphia vote.

I disagree on Walker. I think he's about as close to the mean GOP voter as you can get, and I think he could be very appealing in the Midwest/PA because he's a Midwestern governor. Katich could win but I'm not sure he'd fire up the rural voters.

Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Quinnipiac hasn't done a national poll in a few months, but the last one they did (May 28th) had her leading Rubio 45-41, Paul 46-62, Bush 47-37, and Walker 48-37.

46-62? Seems legit :P

Oops, 46-42. :P

Yeah, Rubio and Bush (Bush when he advertizes nationally) will have the largest appeal. They will talk in Spanish on spanish TV and radio, flipping FL, CO, NM (maybe), and NV (maybe). They are also moderate, so they appeal in OH and PA. Paul and Walker have no chance in PA and are in for a rough ride in OH. VA will prefer Walker and Paul to Rubio and Bush, but Rubio and Bush could still probably win it (More likely Rubio since he has both moderate and some base appeal).

I'd almost be willing to bet Nevada will vote for whoever wins. Since 1900, they've voted for the winner in all but two elections: 1912 and 1976. New Mexico is a state that could flip, but the Republican would need around 60% of the white vote and 40% of the minority vote to win (Romney only won 56% of the white vote and 30% of the minority vote, and lost by 10%). But those states are really a waste of money - only 11 electoral votes between them. IMO, Republicans need to focus almost exclusively on Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. Those are the biggest states most likely to flip.

Colorado doesn't surprise me as being a state Republicans could do well in. It's been more of an Obama-leaning state than a Democratic-leaning one. Ultimately winning Colorado and Iowa still wouldn't make up for losing Virginia, but it would help.

Depends on the candidate. I don't see Santorum, for example, winning it. I see Kaisich, Rubio, Bush, and Walker being able to flip it though.

Yeah, you need someone fairly mainstream to win there.

Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.

Rubio-Kasich doesn't sound bad. I'm very confident Rubio would wipe the floor with Clinton.

It would lock up FL and OH, put PA into play (and maybe Michigan to some extent). Kaisich also would poll well in the Midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota (though Minnesota will probably stay D in this election), so I truly think that a Bush-Kaisich or Rubio-Kaisich is the best for electability.

Iowa could easily flip. We might have to wait another cycle or two before Minnesota becomes truly flippable, but I really think we'll have a chance there in a cycle or two. It's only been a point or two more Democratic than the national average the last two cycles. I'm not sure a Republican can really win Michigan again for a long while, though... it's going the opposite way Minnesota has.

Also, do you like Walker? he has never done it to me. I have no rational reasons to not like him, he just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, lol.

I like the idea of him. He's won on basically every issue he's pushed and won three times in a light-blue state (Wisconsin, which is another good flip target). He's Midwestern (a key demographic) and is very close to the mean GOP voter. I'm unsure how he'll stand up to national pressure. He and Rubio are, in my view, the most conservative candidates that can win.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 2:33:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:37:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 11:06:35 AM, TN05 wrote:
According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton is behind Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush in three key swing states:

Colorado:
*Walker leads Clinton 47-38
*Rubio leads Clinton 46-38
*Bush leads Clinton 41-36
*34% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 62% do not

Iowa:
*Walker leads Clinton 45-37
*Rubio leads Clinton 44-36
*Bush leads Clinton 42-36
*33% see Clinton as honest and trustworthy, 59% do not

Virginia:
*Walker leads Clinton 43-40
*Rubio leads Clinton 43-41
*Bush leads Clinton 42-39
*39% see Clinton as trustworthy, 55% do not

The margin of error in each state was 2.8 so all but Rubio-Clinton in VA are past it.

I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.



I absolutely agree about PA. Republicans have been consistently gaining there for years, and Democrats have basically maxed out Philly and the suburbs. It's only a matter of time until it flips. Pittsburgh itself has actually been trending Republican as well - Romney won the metro area, and the Democratic vote share in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh's county) has actually decreased since 2004. All a Republican has to do to win is hold the Romney states, and flip Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.


Obama won North Carolina... So they should probably look at that too :P

I am not even talking about related stuff, lol. But yeah, Rubio, Bush, and Kaisich could probably flip PA. I dunno about Walker -- I think he is too far right to get ~45% of the Philadelphia vote.

I disagree on Walker. I think he's about as close to the mean GOP voter as you can get, and I think he could be very appealing in the Midwest/PA because he's a Midwestern governor. Katich could win but I'm not sure he'd fire up the rural voters.

Walker and Rubio, interestingly, are pretty close (Rubio is a bit more to the right): http://fivethirtyeight.com...

Since Walker's big thing is "FVCK UNIONS," it will hurt him in a lot of key areas.. like Philly and other industrial states. And Kaisich won 86/88 counties in Ohio, has a 60% approval rating, etc. I think that he is good at making people of all walks of life like him. I dunno why but I watched Kaisich's speech and interview on Hannity, and he is close to Rubio on my list. A slight number 2, followed by Jeb. I like him.


Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Quinnipiac hasn't done a national poll in a few months, but the last one they did (May 28th) had her leading Rubio 45-41, Paul 46-62, Bush 47-37, and Walker 48-37.

46-62? Seems legit :P

Oops, 46-42. :P

The 62 = Chicago voting


Yeah, Rubio and Bush (Bush when he advertizes nationally) will have the largest appeal. They will talk in Spanish on spanish TV and radio, flipping FL, CO, NM (maybe), and NV (maybe). They are also moderate, so they appeal in OH and PA. Paul and Walker have no chance in PA and are in for a rough ride in OH. VA will prefer Walker and Paul to Rubio and Bush, but Rubio and Bush could still probably win it (More likely Rubio since he has both moderate and some base appeal).

I'd almost be willing to bet Nevada will vote for whoever wins. Since 1900, they've voted for the winner in all but two elections: 1912 and 1976. New Mexico is a state that could flip, but the Republican would need around 60% of the white vote and 40% of the minority vote to win (Romney only won 56% of the white vote and 30% of the minority vote, and lost by 10%). But those states are really a waste of money - only 11 electoral votes between them. IMO, Republicans need to focus almost exclusively on Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. Those are the biggest states most likely to flip.

I agree, but NM could turn naturally with a fluent Spanish candidate like Jeb or Marco. A few Spanish adds and you pretty much win. Plus I will be here with my one sh!tty vote :D

Since W won 40% of the Hispanic vote, I think Jeb and Marco can equal that here.

Colorado doesn't surprise me as being a state Republicans could do well in. It's been more of an Obama-leaning state than a Democratic-leaning one. Ultimately winning Colorado and Iowa still wouldn't make up for losing Virginia, but it would help.

Depends on the candidate. I don't see Santorum, for example, winning it. I see Kaisich, Rubio, Bush, and Walker being able to flip it though.

Yeah, you need someone fairly mainstream to win there.

Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.

Rubio-Kasich doesn't sound bad. I'm very confident Rubio would wipe the floor with Clinton.

It would lock up FL and OH, put PA into play (and maybe Michigan to some extent). Kaisich also would poll well in the Midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota (though Minnesota will probably stay D in this election), so I truly think that a Bush-Kaisich or Rubio-Kaisich is the best for electability.

Iowa could easily flip. We might have to wait another cycle or two before Minnesota becomes truly flippable, but I really think we'll have a chance there in a cycle or two. It's only been a point or two more Democratic than the national average the last two cycles. I'm not sure a Republican can really win Michigan again for a long while, though... it's going the opposite way Minnesota has.

Remember when in the 2000s everyone thought the Dems were dying forever like we are right now? Good times


Also, do you like Walker? he has never done it to me. I have no rational reasons to not like him, he just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, lol.

I like the idea of him. He's won on basically every issue he's pushed and won three times in a light-blue state (Wisconsin, which is another good flip target). He's Midwestern (a key demographic) and is very close to the mean GOP voter. I'm unsure how he'll stand up to national pressure. He and Rubio are, in my view, the most conservative candidates that can win.

eh............................................................ I mean...................... The turnout in those gubernatorial elections were super low...... And he was getting rekt by Wisconsin last time I checked... I think it will be blue this time still.

I don't see Walker winning. I am just prejudiced against him for some reason. It isn't like I disagree with him, I just don't like him XD - And his polling against Hillary on a national level is kinda sh!t. Paul is polling as well as Rubio for some reason. Still don't think he could win in a long-term race. Walker would need a good VP choice to win.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 2:59:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 2:43:51 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 2:33:35 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:48:09 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:37:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 7/22/2015 1:24:33 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I still think Rubio and Bush are better candidates for the long-term... And Kaisich.



I absolutely agree about PA. Republicans have been consistently gaining there for years, and Democrats have basically maxed out Philly and the suburbs. It's only a matter of time until it flips. Pittsburgh itself has actually been trending Republican as well - Romney won the metro area, and the Democratic vote share in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh's county) has actually decreased since 2004. All a Republican has to do to win is hold the Romney states, and flip Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.


Obama won North Carolina... So they should probably look at that too :P

Eh, I live there and I don't really see us flipping again. Even then we were at least four or five points more Republican than the national average. Unless Hillary can get the black vote out NC is fairly safe.

I am not even talking about related stuff, lol. But yeah, Rubio, Bush, and Kaisich could probably flip PA. I dunno about Walker -- I think he is too far right to get ~45% of the Philadelphia vote.

I disagree on Walker. I think he's about as close to the mean GOP voter as you can get, and I think he could be very appealing in the Midwest/PA because he's a Midwestern governor. Katich could win but I'm not sure he'd fire up the rural voters.

Walker and Rubio, interestingly, are pretty close (Rubio is a bit more to the right): http://fivethirtyeight.com...

They are basically identical IMO. That's why I like both of them. :D

Since Walker's big thing is "FVCK UNIONS," it will hurt him in a lot of key areas.. like Philly and other industrial states. And Kaisich won 86/88 counties in Ohio, has a 60% approval rating, etc. I think that he is good at making people of all walks of life like him. I dunno why but I watched Kaisich's speech and interview on Hannity, and he is close to Rubio on my list. A slight number 2, followed by Jeb. I like him.

TBF, Kasich pushed the union stuff as well. Only difference is Ohio voters overturned it.

Does this do national polling? Because they may be behind in Ohio and Florida... And North Carolina... Also it is interesting that Rubio and Walker lead about the same in CO (+8 vs +9), because Walker doesn't have much of a Hispanic appeal.

Quinnipiac hasn't done a national poll in a few months, but the last one they did (May 28th) had her leading Rubio 45-41, Paul 46-62, Bush 47-37, and Walker 48-37.

46-62? Seems legit :P

Oops, 46-42. :P

The 62 = Chicago voting

LOL

Yeah, Rubio and Bush (Bush when he advertizes nationally) will have the largest appeal. They will talk in Spanish on spanish TV and radio, flipping FL, CO, NM (maybe), and NV (maybe). They are also moderate, so they appeal in OH and PA. Paul and Walker have no chance in PA and are in for a rough ride in OH. VA will prefer Walker and Paul to Rubio and Bush, but Rubio and Bush could still probably win it (More likely Rubio since he has both moderate and some base appeal).

I'd almost be willing to bet Nevada will vote for whoever wins. Since 1900, they've voted for the winner in all but two elections: 1912 and 1976. New Mexico is a state that could flip, but the Republican would need around 60% of the white vote and 40% of the minority vote to win (Romney only won 56% of the white vote and 30% of the minority vote, and lost by 10%). But those states are really a waste of money - only 11 electoral votes between them. IMO, Republicans need to focus almost exclusively on Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Colorado. Those are the biggest states most likely to flip.

I agree, but NM could turn naturally with a fluent Spanish candidate like Jeb or Marco. A few Spanish adds and you pretty much win. Plus I will be here with my one sh!tty vote :D

Since W won 40% of the Hispanic vote, I think Jeb and Marco can equal that here.

It could happen.

Colorado doesn't surprise me as being a state Republicans could do well in. It's been more of an Obama-leaning state than a Democratic-leaning one. Ultimately winning Colorado and Iowa still wouldn't make up for losing Virginia, but it would help.

Depends on the candidate. I don't see Santorum, for example, winning it. I see Kaisich, Rubio, Bush, and Walker being able to flip it though.

Yeah, you need someone fairly mainstream to win there.

Anyway, I still think that Rubio and Bush are more electable than Walker in the long-term. I think a Bush-Kaisich or a Rubio-Kaisich ticket is the way to go. Walker-Rubio would probably do well, but I simply don't think that Walker is gonna be electable. Depending on how the primary debate is, since I think that crushing Hillary in the debates is gonna be important, we will know what the long-run candidates are gonna be.

Rubio-Kasich doesn't sound bad. I'm very confident Rubio would wipe the floor with Clinton.

It would lock up FL and OH, put PA into play (and maybe Michigan to some extent). Kaisich also would poll well in the Midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota (though Minnesota will probably stay D in this election), so I truly think that a Bush-Kaisich or Rubio-Kaisich is the best for electability.

Iowa could easily flip. We might have to wait another cycle or two before Minnesota becomes truly flippable, but I really think we'll have a chance there in a cycle or two. It's only been a point or two more Democratic than the national average the last two cycles. I'm not sure a Republican can really win Michigan again for a long while, though... it's going the opposite way Minnesota has.

Remember when in the 2000s everyone thought the Dems were dying forever like we are right now? Good times

Reports of political party deaths are almost always premature.

Also, do you like Walker? he has never done it to me. I have no rational reasons to not like him, he just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, lol.

I like the idea of him. He's won on basically every issue he's pushed and won three times in a light-blue state (Wisconsin, which is another good flip target). He's Midwestern (a key demographic) and is very close to the mean GOP voter. I'm unsure how he'll stand up to national pressure. He and Rubio are, in my view, the most conservative candidates that can win.

eh............................................................ I mean...................... The turnout in those gubernatorial elections were super low...... And he was getting rekt by Wisconsin last time I checked... I think it will be blue this time still.

Turnout was actually at a record high for a midterm in 2014 (somewhere around 57%). :D

Wisconsin is a tad bit more conservative than Minnesota and much, much swingier. Bush lost it twice, but only by a combined margin of 17,000 votes. It's a state that could definitely swing under the right circumstances.

I don't see Walker winning. I am just prejudiced against him for some reason. It isn't like I disagree with him, I just don't like him XD - And his polling against Hillary on a national level is kinda sh!t. Paul is polling as well as Rubio for some reason. Still don't think he could win in a long-term race. Walker would need a good VP choice to win.

Eh, I think he has a shot at least.
thett3
Posts: 14,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 4:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why does it seem like Clinton does a lot better in national polls than she does in swing state polls? I wonder if her lead nationally stems from name recognition, whereas people in swing states know their vote counts (thanks electoral college) and so think more about it. It also seems like there are way more undecideds in the swing state polls than the national ones
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 5:05:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 4:01:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
Why does it seem like Clinton does a lot better in national polls than she does in swing state polls? I wonder if her lead nationally stems from name recognition, whereas people in swing states know their vote counts (thanks electoral college) and so think more about it. It also seems like there are way more undecideds in the swing state polls than the national ones

There are more undecideds in swing states, which is a good thing, because it means the people who vote their are more likely to vote due to policy and not partisanship. I wonder if there's a connection between having their votes matter due to being in a swing state and being less likely to just vote for party or name recognition (from the psychological viewpoint of if it matters, don't just throw it away).
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2015 5:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/22/2015 4:01:50 PM, thett3 wrote:
Why does it seem like Clinton does a lot better in national polls than she does in swing state polls? I wonder if her lead nationally stems from name recognition, whereas people in swing states know their vote counts (thanks electoral college) and so think more about it. It also seems like there are way more undecideds in the swing state polls than the national ones

Depends on the polls, tbh. Some national polls show Jeb tied with her (FOX), and Rubio within the margin of error (FOX, PPP). Rubio and Paul poll the best (idk why Paul is polling well........ worries me because he is fvcking insane and wrong).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross