Release 'The Jeb'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Dunno where you get your information, but realclearpolitics has HRC leading in every head-to-head match-up against Bush, Walker, Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie and Carson.

jnd[/quote]

Historically, one particular candidate will beat a myriad of potential candidates every time. So, that poll is quite meaningless.

Even so I’ve actually seen recent polls where almost any of the top contenders do well against Hillary. But, far more importantly I am looking beyond any early polling directly at the candidate herself.

Want to read my laundry list?

[/quote]

RealClearPolitics describes the mean numbers to multiple polls not “a poll.”

More importantly, just because you say that a poll (or polls) is/are meaningless does not make that true.

Please post the links to these polls that you are referring to. I would really like to see them-especially because they the exact opposite of what RCP is showing.

jnd

62

jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

63

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that you are no expert.

jnd

64

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that your no expert.

jnd[/quote]

Oh my (eye roll) that poll demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. She has been in the public eye since 1992 when her husband defeated George H. W. Bush. That means that for the past 21 years (up to 2013) people have had the opportunity to see her in the public eye as a Senator and Sec of State and guess what?

THEY STILL DON’T LIKE HER!!

Her negatives certainly only go up from there. Do you think suddenly after 23 years they will now love her?

Why do you think her handlers are keeping her campaign low key and her out of the public eye?

Answer: because the more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the LESS you like her.

The only change that we see through the years is her negatives continuing to climb slightly with each passing year/scandal.

"A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Clinton’s favorability rating at 46%, while 50% of the 1,025 Americans surveyed said they view her unfavorably – her lowest marks in 14 years.

The poll also found that just 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t. And three Republican contenders – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – are within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points when pitted head to head against Clinton."

Get a clue pal you don’t win with numbers like that. They will be worse one year from today you can count on that.

Next time do your homework or you will not be worthy of my response.

Here’s what you have to do:

Come back with some serious support of Hillary Clinton. Explain to everyone how she overcomes her (now decades) of high negatives. Also explain to me and the others how she can overcome that little trust factor problem the public seems to have with her. And when you get done with that point out how she is not going to be portrayed as yesterdays news.

In short get on the ball you are lazy and out of touch. You are also letting your emotions dictate your position.

In short, get your facts straight or just go away.

65

The quotes from above are from a June 2015 poll:

66

As long as Hilary beats Sanders, I’m not really that concerned who wins POTUS as long as the other party has the house.

I’ll take Hil over Bam any day of the week, and as long as the right (not just GOP RINO’s) stay strong in the house, my 2nd amendment rights stay in tact.

I’m quickly becoming a single issue voter.

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that your no expert.

jnd[/quote]

Oh my (eye roll) that poll demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. She has been in the public eye since 1992 when her husband defeated George H. W. Bush. That means that for the past 21 years (up to 2013) people have had the opportunity to see her in the public eye as a Senator and Sec of State and guess what?

THEY STILL DON’T LIKE HER!!

Her negatives certainly only go up from there. Do you think suddenly after 23 years they will now love her?

Why do you think her handlers are keeping her campaign low key and her out of the public eye?

Answer: because the more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the LESS you like her.

The only change that we see through the years is her negatives continuing to climb slightly with each passing year/scandal.

"A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Clinton’s favorability rating at 46%, while 50% of the 1,025 Americans surveyed said they view her unfavorably – her lowest marks in 14 years.

The poll also found that just 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t. And three Republican contenders – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – are within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points when pitted head to head against Clinton."

Get a clue pal you don’t win with numbers like that. They will be worse one year from today you can count on that.

Next time do your homework or you will not be worthy of my response.

Here’s what you have to do:

Come back with some serious support of Hillary Clinton. Explain to everyone how she overcomes her (now decades) of high negatives. Also explain to me and the others how she can overcome that little trust factor problem the public seems to have with her. And when you get done with that point out how she is not going to be portrayed as yesterdays news.

In short get on the ball you are lazy and out of touch. You are also letting your emotions dictate your position.

In short, get your facts straight or just go away.

[/quote]
OK- teach, I’ll get right on your list of demands. You should sit by your computer holding your breath.

Do my homework?!?!?! You are the one who keeps showing his ass with every post. You are one arrogant character.

I will not go away- I will be here to point out each time you make a stupid statement that is not supported by data.

You are the emotional one. I just like the data.

jnd

68

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that your no expert.

jnd[/quote]

Oh my (eye roll) that poll demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. She has been in the public eye since 1992 when her husband defeated George H. W. Bush. That means that for the past 21 years (up to 2013) people have had the opportunity to see her in the public eye as a Senator and Sec of State and guess what?

THEY STILL DON’T LIKE HER!!

Her negatives certainly only go up from there. Do you think suddenly after 23 years they will now love her?

Why do you think her handlers are keeping her campaign low key and her out of the public eye?

Answer: because the more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the LESS you like her.

The only change that we see through the years is her negatives continuing to climb slightly with each passing year/scandal.

"A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Clinton’s favorability rating at 46%, while 50% of the 1,025 Americans surveyed said they view her unfavorably – her lowest marks in 14 years.

The poll also found that just 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t. And three Republican contenders – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – are within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points when pitted head to head against Clinton."

Get a clue pal you don’t win with numbers like that. They will be worse one year from today you can count on that.

Next time do your homework or you will not be worthy of my response.

Here’s what you have to do:

Come back with some serious support of Hillary Clinton. Explain to everyone how she overcomes her (now decades) of high negatives. Also explain to me and the others how she can overcome that little trust factor problem the public seems to have with her. And when you get done with that point out how she is not going to be portrayed as yesterdays news.

In short get on the ball you are lazy and out of touch. You are also letting your emotions dictate your position.

In short, get your facts straight or just go away.

[/quote]
OK- teach, I’ll get right on your list of demands. You should sit by your computer holding your breath.

Do my homework?!?!?! You are the one who keeps showing his ass with every post. You are one arrogant character.

I will not go away- I will be here to point out each time you make a stupid statement that is not supported by data.

You are the emotional one. I just like the data.

jnd

[/quote]

Still waiting for you to point something out that I wrote that is inaccurate.

It’s easy to personally attack anyone, but you have not yet responded with any sort of counter point. One of the reasons that many of us post is to encounter good debate. Is your entire political argument going to be calling me names? I guess it’s easy to be arrogant when confronted with such weak opposition.

Keep posting though we all need a laugh now and then. :slight_smile:

69

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that your no expert.

jnd[/quote]

Oh my (eye roll) that poll demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. She has been in the public eye since 1992 when her husband defeated George H. W. Bush. That means that for the past 21 years (up to 2013) people have had the opportunity to see her in the public eye as a Senator and Sec of State and guess what?

THEY STILL DON’T LIKE HER!!

Her negatives certainly only go up from there. Do you think suddenly after 23 years they will now love her?

Why do you think her handlers are keeping her campaign low key and her out of the public eye?

Answer: because the more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the LESS you like her.

The only change that we see through the years is her negatives continuing to climb slightly with each passing year/scandal.

"A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Clinton’s favorability rating at 46%, while 50% of the 1,025 Americans surveyed said they view her unfavorably – her lowest marks in 14 years.

The poll also found that just 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t. And three Republican contenders – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – are within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points when pitted head to head against Clinton."

Get a clue pal you don’t win with numbers like that. They will be worse one year from today you can count on that.

Next time do your homework or you will not be worthy of my response.

Here’s what you have to do:

Come back with some serious support of Hillary Clinton. Explain to everyone how she overcomes her (now decades) of high negatives. Also explain to me and the others how she can overcome that little trust factor problem the public seems to have with her. And when you get done with that point out how she is not going to be portrayed as yesterdays news.

In short get on the ball you are lazy and out of touch. You are also letting your emotions dictate your position.

In short, get your facts straight or just go away.

[/quote]
OK- teach, I’ll get right on your list of demands. You should sit by your computer holding your breath.

Do my homework?!?!?! You are the one who keeps showing his ass with every post. You are one arrogant character.

I will not go away- I will be here to point out each time you make a stupid statement that is not supported by data.

You are the emotional one. I just like the data.

jnd

[/quote]

Still waiting for you to point something out that I wrote that is inaccurate.

It’s easy to personally attack anyone, but you have not yet responded with any sort of counter point. One of the reasons that many of us post is to encounter good debate. Is your entire political argument going to be calling me names? I guess it’s easy to be arrogant when confronted with such weak opposition.

Keep posting though we all need a laugh now and then. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

ZEB , we both know , you nor the majority of this board are interested in debate . You and the board are interested in promoting that the correct stance on all matters are of the “CONSERVATIVE” persuasion . In my Opinion this board is a s guilty as any Left Leaning board that I have ever seen . Almost all material contained with in is filtered through FAUX and the like . You get liberals on occasion but you always manage to run them off through ignorant arrogance , Peace

70

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]jnd wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Historically any poll which has a named candidate vs. a group of other candidates will show the named candidate winning. The reason for this is that people know who that particular candidate is. Simple right?

Hillary Clinton has great name recognition which is a good thing. But unfortunately for her she is the most polarizing candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land.

In other words just about everyone has heard of her but a sizable number of people really don’t like her. No one has ever gotten elected to the Presidency with such high negatives.

Now you won’t hear any of this from the mainstream liberal media. They are trying to make believe that those numbers don’t exist. But alas they are there and they are very important.

Take a look at this:

"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the number of people who have a positive view of Clinton has dropped from a high of 58 percent in December to 46 percent today.

The 22 percent who have a “very positive” view of Clinton is lower than any time since the 2008 presidential campaign, and the 21 percent who have a “very negative” view of her is higher than at any point since then."

So, basically you either love her or hate her. This is not how someone gets elected to the Presidency.

[/quote]

A new poll from 2013?!?!? WTF? This is just sloppy research on your end.

BTW- you really should read the stuff you link to. The poll you linked to shows HRC with higher positive ratings than any of the other people listed- including Ted Cruz.

Do us all a favor and stop trying to show us how much you think you know about polling- because you show time and time again that your no expert.

jnd[/quote]

Oh my (eye roll) that poll demonstrates that Hillary Clinton has high negatives. She has been in the public eye since 1992 when her husband defeated George H. W. Bush. That means that for the past 21 years (up to 2013) people have had the opportunity to see her in the public eye as a Senator and Sec of State and guess what?

THEY STILL DON’T LIKE HER!!

Her negatives certainly only go up from there. Do you think suddenly after 23 years they will now love her?

Why do you think her handlers are keeping her campaign low key and her out of the public eye?

Answer: because the more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the LESS you like her.

The only change that we see through the years is her negatives continuing to climb slightly with each passing year/scandal.

"A CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday showed Clinton’s favorability rating at 46%, while 50% of the 1,025 Americans surveyed said they view her unfavorably – her lowest marks in 14 years.

The poll also found that just 42% of Americans consider her honest and trustworthy, while 57% don’t. And three Republican contenders – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – are within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points when pitted head to head against Clinton."

Get a clue pal you don’t win with numbers like that. They will be worse one year from today you can count on that.

Next time do your homework or you will not be worthy of my response.

Here’s what you have to do:

Come back with some serious support of Hillary Clinton. Explain to everyone how she overcomes her (now decades) of high negatives. Also explain to me and the others how she can overcome that little trust factor problem the public seems to have with her. And when you get done with that point out how she is not going to be portrayed as yesterdays news.

In short get on the ball you are lazy and out of touch. You are also letting your emotions dictate your position.

In short, get your facts straight or just go away.

[/quote]
OK- teach, I’ll get right on your list of demands. You should sit by your computer holding your breath.

Do my homework?!?!?! You are the one who keeps showing his ass with every post. You are one arrogant character.

I will not go away- I will be here to point out each time you make a stupid statement that is not supported by data.

You are the emotional one. I just like the data.

jnd

[/quote]

Still waiting for you to point something out that I wrote that is inaccurate.

It’s easy to personally attack anyone, but you have not yet responded with any sort of counter point. One of the reasons that many of us post is to encounter good debate. Is your entire political argument going to be calling me names? I guess it’s easy to be arrogant when confronted with such weak opposition.

Keep posting though we all need a laugh now and then. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

ZEB , we both know , you nor the majority of this board are interested in debate . You and the board are interested in promoting that the correct stance on all matters are of the “CONSERVATIVE” persuasion . In my Opinion this board is a s guilty as any Left Leaning board that I have ever seen . Almost all material contained with in is filtered through FAUX and the like . You get liberals on occasion but you always manage to run them off through ignorant arrogance , Peace
[/quote]

Peace?

Oooookay…well you see Pittski I have my positions on the political topics of the day and you have yours. We then encounter each other on this board and we have a debate…not that difficult to understand. When one of your left wing brethren decides to name call and not address the topic at hand I have to call him out on it. Fair right?

Interesting though the very nature of your complaint has more to do with sheer numbers than subject matter. Neither of us can control what others post can we?

71

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Peace?

Oooookay…well you see Pittski I have my positions on the political topics of the day and you have yours. We then encounter each other on this board and we have a debate…not that difficult to understand. When one of your left wing brethren decides to name call and not address the topic at hand I have to call him out on it. Fair right?

Interesting though the very nature of your complaint has more to do with sheer numbers than subject matter. Neither of us can control what others post can we?[/quote]

Zebster-

Let’s be completely clear.

  1. You are arrogant- you scream the loudest and say the most, but that does not make your opinions accurate.

  2. Your “analysis” of voting and polling is nothing more than your opinion. There is nothing for me to address/debate/refute. You have strong conservative opinions, I get that. Your opinions are yours, I am glad you have them and feel strongly about them…BUT they simply do not match the available data. You point to A single poll showing one aspect of a candidate (HRC’s negatives), I point to a SERIES of polls that have been averaged and you dismiss that information. I get it- because it does not match your preconceived idea of what is happening.

  3. I do not know who is going to win in '16, but I do know that the data will tell us WAY before November 2016. If I had to bet today- I’d easily wager everything on HRC. Will that change- I don’t know and either do you.

jnd

72

[quote]jnd wrote:

Zebster-

Let’s be completely clear.

  1. You are arrogant- you scream the loudest and say the most, but that does not make your opinions accurate.[/quote]

Nor does it make them inaccurate! As for arrogant, I’d say you fit that image pretty well. You have yet to post one fact of your own. Your entire argument relies upon name calling and claiming that you have facts, yet you have not posted them. You’re an odd little man…

Some of it is my opinion for certain. However the polls that I’ve produced showing Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable status is not my opinion. Do you have polls showing that her unfavorable status is going down? If so please post them I’d love to see them. If not then it is simply your own opinion which you are relying on. By the way there are a myriad of polls available to anyone who googles that claim her popularity is in great question and is only getting worse with time. You should google more and post less.

Yet, you keep showing up trying really hard to refute what I have posted so far with no success.

After 6 1/2 years with the worst modern day President in office I bet more people have such opinions than you might think. And the country is not going to elect another left wing democrat (Bernie Saunders causing her to steer even further left–and yes that’s a fact)

I doubt very highly that you are glad that I have them. You are obviously upset that I have put forth a strong argument that Hillary gets her clock cleaned next November. That bothers you to no end which by the way gives me joy :). I’m glad that you bit on my constant bombardment of Hillary. I didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to defend her. But you are here! Thank you!

Actually they do match available data right down the line. In fact, a recent poll shows that any of the top three republican candidates would beat or tie her today. Keep in mind two of those candidates do not have nearly the name recognition of Mrs. Clinton. On top of that her negatives continue to climb as I have already pointed out with two polls. Tell me how does she get elected when over 50% of those polled say that she can’t be trusted. And that is not my opinion that is the opinion of those polled. Do you have an answer for that?

I produced two polls to your NONE. one from a couple of years ago and one from the month of June 2015. The first showed her negatives as being high, the second one showed her negatives climbing even higher. As I have said the more people see her the less they like her. That’s why her handlers keep her from campaigning in a traditional style, or didn’t you notice? They know she is not a likeable candidate. Those are facts my friend not my opinion.

You have posted nothing! No polls, no evidence NOTHING. All you’ve done is name call and give me your opinion- Which by the way does not win any debate points.

Neither do I and I never claimed that I did. But I do know who is NOT going to win.

Since you feel so strongly about this we should make a bet. If Hillary loses you don’t post on T Nation under any name for one full year. If she wins I will do the same.

Well?

I know it’s not as much fun as calling me names and never producing any data of your own. But, it’s one way for you to show everyone how confident you are in Hillary. So I would love for you to take me up on it. Because …Hillary is not going to get elected President, not now and not ever! I have given you my opinions along with historical facts and poll data.

You have only your strong left leaning name calling opinions—W E A K

So, would you like to make that wager, or do you just want to run your mouth and sound not up to the task?

Bet?

73

jnd,

Here are a few more polls for you to look at. Again the point of posting both older and new polls is to show that she continues to take a downward slide. Just when you think she can’t go any lower regarding her negatives BANG she takes another slide downward. And her handlers know that so they keep her out of the public eye all they can. But what happens when people are seeing her and hearing her on a regular basis in 2016? OUCH!

Keep in mind she has no where to go but down. People already know her and have for the past 23 years or so. What does she have left to show them? NADA! As opposed to a fresh new republican face.

Think about it…

She was so lovable back in 08’ that her own party threw her to the curb for practically a freshman Senator–LOL.

But, but, now you see…now she’s popular…um people really love her. Uh huh. Do you have any facts to back that up? Nope. According to the polls and political history (both you know nothing about) she might just not be in for an old fashion close race loss but a colossal landslide! I’m not yet predicting she loses by a landslide. But I am suggesting that she is headed in that direction and depending on who the republican candidate is she could very well lose by 10 or more points. Now that IS my opinion but it is based on some very good evidence. That word evidence should means something to you by now even though you have produced none of your own.

Read em and weep…

74

Hillary is going to win the nomination…right?

We find old socialist Bernie Saunders sneaking up on Hillary. As I’ve said before he probably can’t take her down. But, he will pull her even further left which will make her quite unappealing to the average voter in the general election. Keep in mind Hillary will have none of the Obama charm heading into the election. But, she will have all of his left leaning tendencies, or at least she will be hung with them because of her desperately trying to appeal to the left wing nut part of the democratic party who votes in the primaries.

This is indeed shaping up to be the perfect storm.

The two polls are just for you j as I know you place a high premium on evidence as opposed to opinion…even though you have yet to post any evidence to the contrary as yet. But I understand you are probably going to unleash any day now (yawn)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-gains-hillary-clinton-100003313.html;_ylt=AwrC0COuIIxV0H8AHc7QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByNXM5bzY5BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

75

Let’s be honest,

Are black people going to show up to vote for an old white women (or any white candidate) the way they did for obama?

76

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Let’s be honest,

Are black people going to show up to vote for an old white women (or any white candidate) the way they did for obama?

[/quote]

No. And Hialry isn’t going to get the same youth enthusiasm Obama did. She doesn’t have the same charm and presence, in fact she is annoying as fuck to listen to.

That said, Sanders will because socialism is all the rage within the entitled shithead ranks of today’s youth.

77

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Let’s be honest,

Are black people going to show up to vote for an old white women (or any white candidate) the way they did for obama?

[/quote]

No. And Hialry isn’t going to get the same youth enthusiasm Obama did. She doesn’t have the same charm and presence, in fact she is annoying as fuck to listen to.

That said, Sanders will because socialism is all the rage within the entitled shithead ranks of today’s youth. [/quote]

Even if sanders get’s the nomination, black people are not going to show up in droves to vote for him the way they did for obama.

Either way, it’s going to be a horrible muck racking experience and the country will be even more divided because of politicians

78

[quote]Aggv wrote:
Let’s be honest,

Are black people going to show up to vote for an old white women (or any white candidate) the way they did for obama?

[/quote]

Valid point Aggv but they are certainly not voting republican.

96% of black voters supported Obama! In the 2004 election (pre Obama) John Kerry captured 88% of the black vote. There is no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton will do much better than this (maybe worse). Keep in mind that Bush handily defeated Kerry that year by about 6.5%.

Obama’s second biggest voting block was youth. History tells us that they will vote for the democratic party nominee. Again, they will not turn out in the numbers for Hillary that they did for Obama. There is no magic surrounding Hillary. In 08’ many under the age of 25 were walking around with stars in their eyes actually thinking Obama was somehow going to save them and bring peace and prosperity to the planet. I laughed in their faces then and now I get to gloat about it. I’m not sure anyone should be allowed to vote who has not seen at least their 21st birthday. But, I digress.

At this point we have no idea who the republican nominee will be. But almost regardless of who it is Hillary is not capturing the two big Obama voting blocks by anywhere near the margins that Obama won them by.

Finally…

Her biggest voting block should be women. But I still wonder how well she will do knowing that only about 23% of women identify themselves with feminism. What about the other 77%?

Interesting read on why women may not turnout in high numbers for Hillary:

79

[quote]ZEB wrote:
they are certainly not voting republican.

[/quote]

Agreed, and i think the overall turnout to vote will be very low this time.

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:
jnd,

Here are a few more polls for you to look at. Again the point of posting both older and new polls is to show that she continues to take a downward slide. Just when you think she can’t go any lower regarding her negatives BANG she takes another slide downward. And her handlers know that so they keep her out of the public eye all they can. But what happens when people are seeing her and hearing her on a regular basis in 2016? OUCH!

Keep in mind she has no where to go but down. People already know her and have for the past 23 years or so. What does she have left to show them? NADA! As opposed to a fresh new republican face.

Think about it…

She was so lovable back in 08’ that her own party threw her to the curb for practically a freshman Senator–LOL.

But, but, now you see…now she’s popular…um people really love her. Uh huh. Do you have any facts to back that up? Nope. According to the polls and political history (both you know nothing about) she might just not be in for an old fashion close race loss but a colossal landslide! I’m not yet predicting she loses by a landslide. But I am suggesting that she is headed in that direction and depending on who the republican candidate is she could very well lose by 10 or more points. Now that IS my opinion but it is based on some very good evidence. That word evidence should means something to you by now even though you have produced none of your own.

Read em and weep…

[/quote]

Zebby-

Congrats on posting years old data. You have links -you win!!!

JK- Here is the link to the realclearpolitics page that I referenced in my original post that got your little panties twisted (“ooooooh someone looked at data that does not match my world-view—must collect old data to win debate with stranger on the tnation forum”).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

What you want to do is look at the BOLD numbers at the top of each comparison. Those numbers are called means (If you need, I can explain what that measure of CT reflects). There is one common name in BOLD. What name does it say???

BTW- when you refer to negatives, I hope you realize that they do not exist in a vacuum- other candidates have negatives too… You don’t think Santorum has negatives???

jnd