Clinton Holds Early Leads in Swing States

[wyldwolf]

A new Quinnipiac poll gives us first look at three critical swing states — Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania — and shows Hillary Clinton tops possible Republican contenders in every matchup, except Florida, where she ties Jeb Bush (R), and Ohio, where she ties John Kasich (R).

-----------

A first look at three critical swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, for the 2016 presidential election is good news for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who tops possible Republican contenders in every matchup, except Florida, where she ties former Gov. Jeb Bush, and Ohio, where she ties Gov. John Kasich, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.

Overall, Gov. Bush runs best of any Republican listed against Clinton, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.

Clinton's favorability rating tops 50 percent in each state, while Republican ratings range from negative to mixed to slightly positive, except for Bush in Florida and Kasich in Ohio.

Of three "Native Son" candidates, measured against Clinton only in their home states, only Ohio Gov. John Kasich gives the Democrat a good run, getting 43 percent to her 44 percent.

Matchups between Clinton and her closest Republican opponent in each state show:

Florida: Clinton at 44 percent to Bush's 43 percent;
Ohio: Clinton over Bush 47 - 36 percent;
Pennsylvania: Clinton tops New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 50 - 39 percent.

"There is a reason why Hillary Clinton has followed a slower, less aggressive schedule when it comes to ramping up her expected presidential campaign than have virtually all of her potential White House opponents," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"She holds double-digit leads over all her potential GOP opponents in the three biggest swing states, except for two Native Sons, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. And she is under little pressure from within her own party to hit the campaign trail," Brown added.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2130

[madville]

1. All name recognition right now

I remember when Clinton was beating McCain in 2007 polling and McCain was ahead of Barack Obama everywhere in 2007. Polling this early is meaningless.

[wyldwolf]

3. It's person recognition

Hillary Clinton is one of the most investigated, most written about, best-known women in history. Yet she still leads. People aren't checking the box next to her name because they know the name 'Clinton.' They know HER.

Early polling provides a snapshot. If telling yourself 'early polling is meaningless' week after week makes you feel better, more power to you.

[benz380]

5. ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. thank you for your input./NT

[AtomicKitten]

23. Pretty sure vomiting is output./nt

[benz380]

26. lol. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. What if you vomit in your mouth? /NT

[AtomicKitten]

117. Besides stank breath?

= output

Either way, your breath smells vomity. No worries though. Feb 15th is National Bad Breath Day.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=national%20Bad%20Breath%20day

[Vattel]

111. nice

[AtomicKitten]

113. It's science, yo. /nt

[Vattel]

114. Zen koan: What is both input and output as well as off-putting? Answer: vomit that is swallowed.

Edited to add: This post is in no way intended to make light of the tragedy of the Spinal Tap drummer who died by choking on someone else's vomit.

[Fumesucker]

112. I'd rather have them inside the tent vomiting out than outside the tent vomiting in

[wyldwolf]

8. the truth makes you sick. We get it.

[Dawgs]

13. LOL!!

It's going to be a long two years for Hillary supporters if this is how they think.

You should know better by now, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

14. LOL!

Denial ain't just a river in... oh, you know the phrase. So your point is people know nothing about Clinton? Just her last name?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Don't forget to thank Dawgs for his input./NT

[wyldwolf]

19. Interesting crutch, this 'name recognition' 'progressives' use to excuse Clinton's popularity

For one thing, in politics, name recognition is desirable thing to have. It's important because low name recognition means less votes from less informed voters. If someone named Reagan or Kennedy of Clinton were running in any race, they'd get at least a small bump because the name is familiar. In the Eddie Murphy movie 'The Distinguished Gentleman' Murphy's character Thomas Jefferson Johnson gets elected because he shares a name with a deceased and popular politician.

But it also works the other way. If someone can get a bump based on their name, they can get a ding as well. So the case can just as easily be made that Hillary would be even MORE popular without the name Clinton. People know her record, her past, her words, because so much has written and said about her. It isn't just the name 'Clinton' that boosts her.

I think the more strategic thinkers on the left know this but they use the meme to excuse her numbers. After all, they must be fueled by the 'low information voters' 'Progressives' in the trenches, (you know, the 'real democrats?') comfort themselves with this meme.

[Dawgs]

18. My point is that you should understand how Presidential elections work by now.

Opinions change almost daily, and those that are the most known and popular one day may end up being the down the next.. say, after a poor debate performance (Obama 2012).

My point is, we have a long way to go, and Clinton's popularity now will almost definitely go down a few times over the next few years. She may be known now, but that doesn't prevent her from saying something stupid (perceived or otherwise) that will knock her back some. And, that goes the some for any of her opponents. They may gain in popularity for whatever reason.

And my guess is that much of Hillary's popularity now is from NOT being in the public eye. After she announces, the media and right-wing will begin questioning every move she makes and the ignorant public will turn on her. It happens every time, and with every politician (known or not).

You should know all of this by now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Couldn't that be said of her would be opponents? /NT

[Dawgs]

24. Yes. My point is that popularity, regardless of familiarity, goes up and down for all.

No candidate is immune.

[wyldwolf]

21. we're discussing a poll, a snapshot for this period of time

Why does that make you so uncomfortable?

[Dawgs]

22. OK. So, to you, this is nothing more than a poll for today.

It has nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election. Because, if that's true, why should anyone give a shit?

[wyldwolf]

28. It's a snapshot of the 2016 election. If the 2016 election were RIGHT NOW...

... THIS is how the numbers stand.

That means folks like you still have a little time knock her down or come up with an excuse like 'name recognition' if she wins.

[Dawgs]

30. Holy shit. You're serious?

It's February of 2015.

[wyldwolf]

36. Ignoring or denying that which pains you doesn't make it go away.

[Dawgs]

40. Ignoring or denying what? I know that leading now doesn't guarantee anything.

As someone else proved to you in a post down the thread.

And, I'm not bothered one bit by these numbers because I actually understand how elections work and polls change.

Again, sad that you don't.

[wyldwolf]

42. Post #28. You're denying what I wrote is true?

[Dawgs]

47. What? I don't deny that TODAY (which doesn't mean or PROVE anything), Hillary is leading.

Same as she was back in 2007.

I will say this. I'm glad that you, and other Hillary supporters, are happy.

[wyldwolf]

56. I said it was a snapshot of today and you went into 'holy shit' ballistic mode.

[Dawgs]

61. Considering that I'm enjoying every bit of our little meaningless conversation,..

I would hardly say I'm going ballistic.

[wyldwolf]

63. If you need a nap, we'll be happy to wait for you. Or maybe you need a Snickers?

[CoffeeCat]

89. Hillary was the supposed "shoo in" last time around...

I think people are forgetting the dynamics of the last Democratic primary. Hillary was all-but coronated before our primary even began.

We were basically led to believe that she was the nominee--and that all of the other candidates were insignificant little fleas buzzing about her head.

I live in Iowa, and I saw--from the front row--what happened. Iowans take their "first in the nation" status very seriously, because we vote first in our caucuses. We demand to see the candidates in small venues and ask them questions. We feel obligated to the rest of the country, to make informed decision.

We listened, attended speeches and did our due diligence--and Hillary came in third. Obama, of course--won and Edwards came in second. This came as a shock to the nation, but was no surprise to Iowans. Hillary bombed in Iowa. Her campaign was so impersonal and corporate, it was laughable. She gave canned speeches at large events and left immediately after speeches, never taking questions. After much criticism, she did a Q & A, but then it was discovered that the questioners were her paid staffers! This was big news here.

Hillary was unable to connect. She seemed robotic, and without any messaging that meant anything to average, working-class people. She came in third (after her decades of public service) to Obama, whose experience paled in comparison.

That says so much. She's been around for so long--and she's got so much name recognition. As another poster said, she's one of the most famous women in the world. However, all it takes is another candidate with a decent campaign--to beat her.

Support for her is lukewarm, at best. I think she's a weakened candidate after losing last time. It's like Romney redux. We need someone else!!

She won't win in Iowa again, I can tell you that much! We know her very well and we rejected her once, we'll do it again.

[Autumn]

105. Agree with everything you said. Caucusing for her here in CO was a dream come true for me .

There's no way in hell I will do it again. You speak the truth.

[William769]

93. It's going to be a eternity for Warren Supporters.

She's happy doing what she's doing.

[Dawgs]

95. Why? Did she do something that should bother me? n/t

[Broward]

16. Do the people recognize her yes vote for the Iraq War?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Didn't stop Joe Biden from being elected vice president twice./NT

[wyldwolf]

25. or John Kerry and John Edwards being the ticket in 2004

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. It also didn't prevent President Obama from making her SOS./NT

[SamKnause]

2. I live in the swing state of Ohio.

John Kasich's policies suck !!!!

I disagree with every single Republican.

I think the majority of them are insane and many are downright evil.

With that being said, I will not vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic candidate.

I will vote for the Green Party, or Independent Party.

I will not vote for the lessor of two evils, and that is how I view Hillary.

If the people of this country do not wake up, we will always be forced to vote for the lessor of two evils.

I will no longer participate in this farce.

I will vote my conscience.

Those who vote for Hillary will be responsible for the continuing destruction of this country.

Flame away.

[wyldwolf]

4. thank you for your input.

[SamKnause]

9. You are most welcome.

I hope you and yours have a safe and pleasant day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. thank you for your input./NT

[SamKnause]

10. You are most welcome.

I hope you and yours have a safe and pleasant day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Likewise/NT

[RiverLover]

11. Thank you for your input. (truly)

Fellow Ohioan atm, Sam, & I agree with everything you wrote. We have to stop enabling Republican policies coming from candidates who only give us Democratic policies in their rhetoric, not their actions. Its hurting our country.

There's no reason for 2 parties if both work only for corporations & banks while throwing US(& the planet) under the bus.

[SamKnause]

74. Thank you.

Until people who support the 'Democratic' Party wake up, nothing will change.

The Republican Party no longer exists.

They are raving lunatics who represent the wealthy and want control over every facet of our lives.

The Democratic party has morphed into the Republican party and they do not prosecute criminals and represent Wall Street and global corporations.

I disagree with both of those parties.

Wall Street does not need anymore protections.

The people of the U.S. need a representative government.

The Republican or Democratic parties are not representative of what this country needs.

I will not be conned by pretty speeches this time around.

President Obama was a wolf in sheep's clothing.

He squandered a great opportunity and I hope history reflects that.

[RiverLover]

101. Great post. This is key.

I wish every voter in the US could read it.

And wake up.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Are you saying you will vote for the Green Party because you will not vote

For the lessor of the two evils? So how do you know the Green Party will be having candidate who is the lessor of the two evils? The candidate you vote for just may destroy our country.

[SamKnause]

64. Thanks for your input.

I usually agree with the Green Party on most issues.

I will do my research and make my decision when the time comes.

I have already extensively researched Hillary and I will not vote for her.

[Thinkingabout]

107. nor will waste a vote on a green party candidate, don't agree with them, but you may as well

Pledge your vote for the GOP.

[SamKnause]

108. You are free to vote for whomever you choose.

Pledge your vote for Hillary and you are voting for the GOP.

She is on par with John McCain when it comes to warmongering.

[Thinkingabout]

109. If this is the best you know about Hillary then you have lots more to research.

I got your point, you believe more in the Green Party, this is a Democratic forum, dont expect open arms with your Green Party pledge, I continue to support Hillary, we need a president with the ability to react to protect the US and our citizens.

[SamKnause]

110. How do you know how many years of research I have done ?

I don't care about being accepted with open arms.

I did not say I made a Green Party pledge.

I said I agree with them on many things.

I am a Socialist.

If they have a candidate in the race they will probably get my vote.

I would vote for the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders if he runs.

Are you against him as well ???

I am quite aware this is the Democratic Underground.

Are you also a big fan of Henry Kissinger ???

Your rudeness does not help your argument.

Civility goes a long way.

I think it is you who does not know about the history of Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

115. You are the one who said you did research, perhaps before you start jumping to conclusions you need

To reread your post, and take your advice about civility. I am not a socialist and do not support Sanders, I am a democrat and support Democrats in elections.

[SamKnause]

116. I think you are the one that is confused.

I stated I DID research.

You inferred I didn't do enough research.

I replied you do NOT know how many years of research I have done.

You are rude.

Don't bother replying.

[Thinkingabout]

118. IF the only thing you could come up was a negative because she voted yes

On IVR and since she and Kissinger both held the office of SOS and she has respect for him, this is pretty shallow on her record. You stated you had already extensive researched Hillary, go back to your post and see what you posted, you also replied about the "years", I am not confused, I just happen to read your post.

[AtomicKitten]

29. Polling early 2007: HRC vs. Republicans

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%)
Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%)
Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%)
Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%)
Clinton (47%) McCain (46%)
Clinton (50%) Romney (41%)
Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/09/321187/-Edwards-beats-all-Republicans-in-latest-Rasmussen-polls

HillaryIs44

[wyldwolf]

31. those numbers a weaker than todays

But wow! These snapshot polls sure make you uncomfortable.

[Dawgs]

34. I don't think "uncomfortable" is the right word for how many of us feel. n/t

[wyldwolf]

35. Ignoring or denying that which pains you doesn't make it go away.

[Dawgs]

37. Not sure what you're referring to, but okay. n/t

[wyldwolf]

38. Ignoring or denying or "acting like you don't know" that which pains you doesn't make it go away.

[Dawgs]

43. I know that today's numbers don't mean shit for anyone or anything.

Can't get pain from that.

[wyldwolf]

51. ooh, your use of profanity. Getting heated, are you?

Let's not have a tantrum.

[Dawgs]

53. "Profanity", "Tantrum"? How old are you? n/t

[wyldwolf]

54. I'm just speaking in terms you'll understand. Do you need a nap?

[Dawgs]

73. I understand alright. Instead of having an adult discussion where you make arguments..

You've resorted to talking to me like an immature teenager.

[wyldwolf]

77. ... you resort to childish tantrums

[Dawgs]

79. Except I never had one. n/t

[wyldwolf]

81. until you saw these poll numbers.

[Dawgs]

84. Nope. You're pollings numbers only make me happy. n/t

[wyldwolf]

86. oh, good! We're in agreement. Great numbers for Hillary.

[Dawgs]

102. Yep. Great numbers for TODAY. We've agreed on that many times.

And actually, I also said I'm happy for you.

[wyldwolf]

103. then why are you so bothered at them being posted?

[Dawgs]

104. I'm not bothered with them being posted at all. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. We need to be patient. Many posters are in the first stage of the grieving process./NT

[Dawgs]

41. LOL!!!! "First stage" in February of 2015 (20 months before election).

Man, I love Hillary supporters. You're making my day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. There are five stages to Elisabeth Kubler Ross' model. You have four more steps.

We want our friends to have sufficient time.

[Dawgs]

50. Denial of what? Please explain.

Thanks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. Her pending presidency. You're welcome./NT

[Dawgs]

57. Relief finally. Thank you. n/t

[wyldwolf]

46. you're in desperate denial, trying to disguise it as amusement.

[Dawgs]

49. Denial of what? Please explain.

Thanks.

[wyldwolf]

60. I explained it above before you went 'holy shit' ballistic.

[Dawgs]

67. Uh, saying 'shit' is not going ballistic.

It's 2014, and we're adults.

[wyldwolf]

75. But 'Holy Shit' with exclamation points? Anger management. Google it.

[Dawgs]

78. Same applies for 'Holy Shit' with exclamation points.

It's called being an adult. Anger and management have nothing to do with it.

[wyldwolf]

88. Saying 'holy shit' is being an adult?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Rasmussen is a shill Republican front outfit but you know that./NT

[Dawgs]

33. Good for her. She won on THAT day.

And a great day to celebrate, if you follow the logic of others on this thread.

[wyldwolf]

66. and every other day polled so far.

[Dawgs]

68. and she lost the nomination in 2008. n/t

[wyldwolf]

72. to a Democrat. We're discussing polling against Republicans. Try to keep up.

[Dawgs]

76. Losing the nomination to a Democrat makes polls against Republicans irrelevant.

Keeping up just fine, thanks.

[wyldwolf]

80. She hasn't lost the 2016 nomination. No, you're lagging behind.

[Dawgs]

82. Yet. And, way ahead of you. n/t

[wyldwolf]

85. who's she losing it to?

[Dawgs]

87. Don't know yet, and heard the same arguments in 2007. n/t

[wyldwolf]

91. Better find out soon. The names so far haven't panned out.

[Dawgs]

92. Heard the same thing in 2007. n/t

[wyldwolf]

94. Link? No, how silly of me to ask.

[Dawgs]

96. Link of her losing in 2007, or Hillary supporters saying that she was inevitable?

Which one you need? There are plenty of both.

[wyldwolf]

100. to you hearing anyone saying challenges had not panned out.

[RiverLover]

52. Thank YOU for ^^^dose of reality.

You'd think we were dealing with a bunch of political novices here.

[William769]

58. Kick & highly recommended.

[JaneyVee]

62. Good. Anyone but a Republican in 2016.

This is the most dangerously ignorant Republican party of my lifetime. It seems every year they get crazier.

[CoffeeCat]

65. Yes, because she's the only Dem running!

I'm kind of tired of the media, which has all ready coronated Hillary.

There's no one else running, because the establishment/elites in the Dem party don't want competition for Hillary.

If a decent Dem--who actually held fast to our core-party principles--decided to run, she would be toast.

Look at her last run. Obama shows up, and Hillary ends up third in Iowa. Obama's resume was brief, compared to Hillary's experience and years of public service. That says a lot. Seriously.

I wish some other Dems--like Elizabeth Warren--would get in on this. We need choices. Hillary has been a great SOS, and I appreciate some of her stances, primarily on social issue, such as abortion. But please--she's a corporatist, and she's also a neocon.

She was defeated once. She can easily be defeated in the primary again, if a decent Dem candidate runs. Yes, please!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Nothing is preventing anybody from challenging her, except fear./NT

[AtomicKitten]

69. June 2007: HRC vs. Republicans

link: http://americablog.com/2007/06/hillary-beats-top-gop-candidates-in-newsweek-poll.html

HillaryIs44

[wyldwolf]

71. that's right. She beat all Republicans in polling then, as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Very consistent if I might say so myself.

[AtomicKitten]

98. How that work out again?

[font color="blue" size="large" face="face"]HillaryIs44[/font]

[wyldwolf]

99. Who ya got in '16?

[underpants]

90. SsshhaaaWing!

[LonePirate]

97. I wish pollsters would stop referring to PA as a swing state in presidential elections

PA solidly votes for the Democratic candidate in presidential elections. This will not change in 2016.

[Orsino]

106. That, Mr. Anderson, is the sound of inevitability. n/t